Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousTerminal Disclaimers and PTO: Proposal for a Test Case
By Dennis Crouch
Obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting is a judicially created doctrine that operates to prevent patentees from improperly extending a patent's effective term through successive patent grants.
The non-statutory double patenting doctrine was created at a time when patent term was measured from the grant date. At that time, it was easy to "play games" with the patent terms by using a series of continuation applications. Because patent term (for new patents) is now defined by the filing/priority date, most of the potential for games has been eliminated because a family of related applications will typically have the same term. However, a growing issue is patent term adjustment (PTA) that increases the patent term for applications with long prosecution pendency. Because of the increased backlog and changes to PTA calculations, it is likely that later-issued applications in a family will have a longer PTA.
Courts and the PTO have agreed that a patentee can overcome a non-statutory double patenting problem by filing a terminal disclaimer that ties the patent-term of a later-granted patent to the patent term of an earlier-granted patent.
The impact of a terminal disclaimer depends upon what was actually disclaimed. Although applicants can draft their own terminal disclaimer, most folks use the form provided by the USPTO. (SB-0025). The PTO Form disclaims the term of the later-issued patent that extends beyond the earlier-issued patent's term. Regarding PTA, the Form expressly ties the later-issued patent's term to the PTA-adjusted term of the earlier-issued patent.
Although not expressly stated, the Form seems to imply that the PTA of the later-issued patent can be cut-short by the disclaimer. That result, however, is not compelled by the law. In theory (and largely in practice) PTA is based on patent office delay. As such, the equitable basis of the non-statutory double patenting doctrine might not apply to require disclaimer of PTA.
A patent applicant may want to pursue a test-case by modifying the terminal disclaimer form to expressly state that the disclaimer does not cut short the PTA of that later-issued patent. Thus, the term of a later-issued patent with a 400-day PTA and a terminal-disclaimer would limited to the term of the earlier-issued patent plus 400-days.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on June 17, 2010 (boomark / email).
Child Support
Disputing Paternity
Language Requirements for Citizenship
Naturalization without an English language test
Water Samples
Govert Well & Pump agrees to $100,000 settlement after failing to test for coliform bacteria.
Canadian Government
allegedly used Canadian soldier as test subjects for nuclear explosion radiation exposure.
Gleevec
Possible Case of Kidney Damage Reported
Hampton Inn
Third Case of Legionnaires' Disease Linked to McHenry Hampton Inn Hot Tub
18-Wheeler Accident Case Settled for $600,000
18-Wheeler Accident Case Settled for $600,000
Jury Awards $29M in Elder Abuse Case
Jury Awards $29M in Elder Abuse Case

Landmark ruling means it's time to review your website disclaimers
Texas: Pregnancy crisis centers may have to post disclaimers
End of Life Decision Could Include Terminal Sedation







