Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 MARCH 2015

Delay Attributed To Applicant Conduct Under PTO Rule For PTA Calculations Does Not Require That Delay Actually Occurred

Gilead appealed from a decision granting summary judgment to the PTO on its calculation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) period for U.S. Pat. No. 8,148,374.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Gilead Sciences, Inc., v. Michelle K. Lee, Deputy Director, USPTO, No. 2014-1159, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2828 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015)(Wallach, J.).  Click Here for a copy of the opinion.

Gilead appealed from a decision granting summary judgment to the PTO on its calculation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) period for U.S. Pat. No. 8,148,374.  Gilead complained that the PTO improperly subtracted a period of applicant delay from the period of PTO delay when calculating the adjusted patent term.  Specifically, the appeal asked whether "filing a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to a restriction requirement constitutes a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application" under § 154(b)(2)(C). The statute states, in part:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from