Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JANUARY 2016

Incomplete Restriction Requirement Stops Clock For Patent Term Adjustment

In Pfizer v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that upheld the USPTO's Patent Term Adjustment calculation that stopped the clock running against the USPTO when the examiner issued an incomplete Restriction Requirement.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Pfizer v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that upheld the USPTO's Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that stopped the clock running against the USPTO when the examiner issued an incomplete Restriction Requirement. This decision is not surprising, but Applicants should remember that they are held to a different standard under the PTA rules.

Patent Term Adjustment

It's been a while since I've written about Patent Term Adjustment, so here's a refresher on the basics:

The PTA statute (35 USC § 154(b)) was created to compensate for delays in the patent examination process that can erode the effective term of a patent, which is measured from the patent's earliest non-provisional U.S. priority date. The statute provides "guarantees" against different types of USPTO delays, and requires a day-for-day deduction of Applicant delays against USPTO delays.

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