In Singhal v. Lee, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a complaint that challenged the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded to two patents, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ms. Singhal challenged the “RCE carve-out” on policy grounds, but federal courts lack authority to re-write statutes on that basis.
The Patent Term Adjustment At Issue
The patents at issue were U.S. 8,090,945 and U.S. 8,103,246, which Ms. Singhal appears to have filed and prosecuted per se. The prosecution of both patents included the filing of one or more Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). When calculating PTA, the USPTO applied 35 USC 154(b)(2)(B) and did not award any PTA for B-delay that occurred after the RCEs were filed.
You can read more about the RCE carve-out here. Ms. Singhal’s complaint was filed before the Federal Circuit rejected part of the USPTO’s carve-out rule in Novartis v. Lee, which you can read about here.
One of Ms. Singhal’s arguments was that the RCE carve-out unjustly penalized applicants who “often have good reason to request continued examination of an application.” For example, Ms. Singhal faced several “final” Office Actions that made new prior art rejections, requiring her to file an RCE in order to amend the claims to overcome the new rejections. Without addressing that position on the merits, the court noted that it lacks authority to re-write the statute:
Courts including the Federal Circuit in interpreting § 154 itself – have repeatedly held that they lack authority to re-write a statute simply because a Plaintiff “believes that the delicate balance that Congress struck was erroneous, unwise, or somehow inequitable.”
Additional PTA Under Novartis
Even is Ms. Singhal is not entitled to the additional PTA she sought, she might be able to obtain additional PTA under Novartis. That could amount to about three additional months of PTA for the ‘845 patent and four additional months of PTA for the ‘246 patent. According to one of the papers filed by the USPTO in this case, the USPTO may recalculate the PTA for both patents consistent with Novartis once this district court proceeding is terminated.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.