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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Solicitor General Counsels against Certiorari Grant on Claim Construction | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

December 06, 2012


"The motivation for this provision in the bill is unclear."

My guess is that the author of this legislation has a constituent (read: campaign contributor) who is opposing the grant of one of these 200 applications.

Dr. Noonan states: "filing a continuation or Request for Continued Examination in these applications strips such applications of their pre-GATT status"

I'm curious as to if the recent Exelixis case have an impact on the applications so stripped.

Dear Skeptical:

Pre-GATT cases are not eligible for the patent term adjustment provisions of the AIPA, because those provisions were intended to ensure at least 17 years from grant to US patents (less any time lost due to applicant delay). Because pre-GATT cases are entitled to 17 years from grant by statute, they cannot get PTA.

Thanks for letting us clarify.

Sorry Dr. Noonan, but I am a little dense and do not understand the clarification. You say pre-GATT cases are not eligible at the same time you are stripping the status of pre-GATT from the cases in question. If you strip something out, I am assuming it no longer applies.

OK, Skep, here is how it goes. Pre-GATT cases are not eligible for patent term adjustment under the AIPA, because the PTA provisions were enacted to ensure post-GATT applicants would get a patent term of at least 17 years from grant (but penalizing applicants who delay prosecution, for example, by filing extension of time requests).

If H.R. 6621 were enacted, most of the pre-GATT applications would have no term remaining (because it has been 20 years or more since the earliest priority/filing date). There is no provision that would then entitle them to PTA based on PTO delay, and so no way for these applications to recoup term.


"concerned citizens or their interest groups should contact their Senator to put a hold on this legislation until it can be considered more deliberately in the next Congress."

Or you can send an email to your Congressperson strongly encouraging him/her to pass the bill, which is exactly what I did.

"it also raises the likelihood that citizens' property rights would evaporate by agency inaction, an outcome that fails Civics 101"

How about the rights of the public to use the abandoned invention that was "restored" by Congress as a porky add-on to the original AIA? Or has everyone forgotten about that little travesty already?

"Porky add-on?" Care to enlighten us?

Pre-GATT patents are a problem. The root cause in many cases is delay at the PTO, not the applicants. HR6621 avoids the real causes and rubs salt into the wounds of those applicants who have already suffered at the incompetence of the PTO. Pre-GATT applicants will fight this law and have a have a good case that HR6621 is unconstitutional. If (when) it is overturned, HR6621 will just make the current problem worse.


Shaving 200 applications from the PTO's backlog, in the name of "patent reform", just doesn't pass the smell test. There being a chip maker or two in Texas, I'm thinking the microprocessor applications of Gilbert Hyatt, some of which the PTO (not Hyatt) has dragged out for decades, might be the actual target of this legislation.

Lamar Smith is a excellent example of the damage a corrupt corporate puppet can do once in office. If he continues in office The U.S. will need a new designation as a forth world country.After 13 terms, this person has been among the main reasons this country has regressed to the status of 3rd world. His "Millennium Copyright Act' alone has set the United States, and world, back by about 50 years. His irresponsible sell-out to the law enforcement community in his home state of Texas should have him charged with human rights violations for allowing the D.P.S. to openly declare war on a neighboring country, Mexico.. Nearly all his bills were bought and paid for by corporations These bills,(S.O.P.A. and P.I.P.A.) among others, have caused the largest protests in American history. The entire House Judiciary Committee was peopled by his equally corrupt cronies on these corporation payrolls. Now he is headed for the chair of the house committee on science and technology. This is a Christian scientist, not a scientist. A person who denies global warming,. He doesn't quite make the grade for a skeptic; also who believes prayer, not science and research can cure disease. As soon as we can get these corporate contributions outlawed the better for all. It will take us all many years to undo some of the damage this greed has caused. We need to get these corporations and their puppets out of our government.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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