Honigman Client First to Win District Court Ruling on Patent Term Adjustment Calculations

Share Article

Court ruling could be worth millions of dollars to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

On November 1, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of a Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP client regarding the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) calculation of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). 1:12CV96; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157762 (E.D. Va Nov. 1, 2012) While numerous companies are also challenging the USPTO’s application of PTA, this is the first decision that has been made on this issue by a court. It is uncertain whether the USPTO will appeal this decision. This victory, if maintained by the courts, will have a significant impact on the calculation of PTA in cases where the applicant was denied PTA after filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).

The District Court’s ruling will benefit companies with patents in which the value of the invention remains, or is even amplified, towards the end of the patent term. In particular, companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are likely to benefit, as the regulatory approval process often results in the product being introduced into the market late in the term of the patent.

Honigman’s suit focused on the USPTO’s application of the statutory provisions that provide for an increase in patent term to compensate patentees for undue delay by the patent office when prosecuting and issuing patents. Honigman argued that the PTO’s denial of PTA after an applicant had filed a Request for Continued Examination was inconsistent with Congressional intent. Judge T.S. Ellis III agreed, finding that a RCE has no impact on PTA if it is filed more than three years after the filing date or the commencement of the national phase.

J. Michael Huget, who leads the Honigman Intellectual Property Litigation Group and argued the case, said “the Court’s ruling brings clarity to important subject matter for many companies, namely the term of their patents.”

The Honigman team involved in this matter included partners Jonathan P. O’Brien, Ph.D. (chair of Honigman’s IP Department), Noel Day, Ph.D., J. Michael Huget, Heidi Berven, Ph.D., Emily Zelenock Tait and Bea Swedlow.

Honigman's IP Department, which includes 36 transactional, procurement and enforcement attorneys, provides a wide variety of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret services, including search, registration, enforcement and anti-counterfeiting. The professionals in the IP Practice Group have experience in numerous industries, including automotive (OEM and suppliers), retailing, publishing (newspapers, books, magazines, multi-media), gaming and hospitality, e-commerce, food and beverage, restaurant, advertising, insurance, software, electronics, consumer products, fashion, banking, transportation, telecommunications, medical services and devices, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and real estate.

About Honigman
Honigman is a leading business law firm based in Michigan with an international practice. Headquartered in Detroit with offices in Lansing, Oakland County, Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, the firm has attorneys practicing in more than 50 different areas of concentration. Honigman’s highly credentialed attorneys and staff, along with its customer-service focus, provide clients in a wide variety of industries timely and cost-effective counsel.

Honigman is proud to be named among the “101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For,” the Detroit Free Press “Top Workplaces,” and the “50 Best Law Firms for Women.” For more information about Honigman visit http://www.honigman.com.


Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Visit website