US grants more patent term for your money

01 February 2010

A Federal Circuit decision last month will be a boon to patent holders affected by USPTO delays. Eileen McDermott considers who will benefit

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last month ruled in Wyeth v Kappos that the USPTO has been incorrectly interpreting the statute governing patent term adjustment. The decision in favour of Wyeth will extend the life of many newly issued patents, and is particularly important for patent holders in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.

Patent term adjustment (PTA) refers to the number of days added to the length of a patent term due to delay by the USPTO. An "A delay" refers to delays resulting from the Office having failed to act within a certain timeframe, while a "B delay" refers to applications that have been pending for more than three years.

The applicable statute was enacted in 1999, after the effective term of a US patent was changed from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from filing in 1994. Under the old 17-year rule, PTO...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements