E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Ballot Initiative on Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Defeated in California | Main | Program on Patents and the Public Good »

November 08, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017ee4e35b13970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos (E.D. Va. 2012):

Comments

Kevin:
We greatly appreciate your review of the Exelixis decision. One notable omission however, the article fails to even mention the successful law firm that brought this PTA calculation error to District Court and successfully argued over the PTO position. We note that citing credit to the victorious law firm is not new, see for example, Patent Docs article: "Fish & Richardson Catches Error in Patent Office's PTA Calculation" published here on July 30, 2009. For the benefit of your readers, the successful law firm was Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP based in Detroit Michigan.

Correct. But obtaining justice is its own reward, after all.

Although the decision is only about the effect of RCEs, the effect of the decision immediately leads to appeals (even unsuccessful ones) that are filed after the 3-year date also causing no loss of PTA.

Richard, I agree. But, if you file the appeal after the 3 year mark, you would be accruing B delay and C delay simultaneously - and (under a natural reading of the Wyeth decision) the overlap would be discounted. However, if you are ultimately unsuccessful in your appeal, you would not accrue any C delay. In that case, you should not have any overlap - and you would get back all the B delay.

How about this - file an appeal after the 3 year mark, have jurisdication pass to the board after the Examiner's Answer, have the case languish for a year or two as it waits it's turn , file an RCE, and prosecute to allowance. Or, file the RCE after the Board's opinion. Or, file the RCE after a request for rehearing! And in all cases, Type B PTA would simply accumulate and accumulate and accumulate ...

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30