USPTO Patent Term Adjustment Error Costs Patent Owners Time And Money

The USPTO appears to have dropped its plans to overhaul the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) process, but that’s no excuse for its failure to process IDSs in accordance with its current rules. Most egregiously, the USPTO erroneously charges a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) deduction for IDSs filed with a Rule 704(d) statement because its PTA calculation process fails to determine whether such a statement was included. While patent owners can file an application to be awarded that PTA, such an application requires a $200 fee–not to mention time to identify the error, prepare and file the petition, and ensure a Certificate of Correction is granted.

The IDS Patent Term Adjustment Penalty

The USPTO treats an IDS filed after a response or Request for Continued Examination (RCE) as a “supplemental reply or other paper” that can trigger a PTA deduction for “Applicant Delay.” The USPTO cites 37 CFR § 1.704(c)(8) as providing for such a deduction even if the IDS is timely under the IDS rules.

The USPTO rules promise that no PTA deduction will be taken if the IDS is filed to submit items cited by the USPTO or a foreign patent office within 30 days of the submission. In particular, 37 CFR § 1.704(d) provides:

A paper containing only an information disclosure statement … will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution … under paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9), or (c)(10) of this section, … if the paper … is accompanied by a statement that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement:
(i) Was first cited in any communication from a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or from the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement; or
(ii) Is a communication that was issued by a patent office in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the Office, and this communication was not received by any individual designated in § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement.

Thus, if the applicant is able to act quickly, the IDS PTA penalty can be avoided if the items to be submitted were cited in a counterpart foreign or international application or by the USPTO, and if the applicant includes a Rule 704(d) statement in the submission.

The IDS Patent Term Adjustment Error

Unfortunately for applicants, the USPTO PTA calculation process does not always involve determining whether an IDS filed after a response or RCE included a Rule 704(d) statement. Thus, the USPTO often charges a PTA deduction under 37 CFR § 1.704(c)(8) even though such a deduction is improper under 37 CFR § 1.704(d).

The PTA Correction Process

When the USPTO makes an error in its PTA calculation, a patent owner can seek correction by filing an “application for patent term adjustment” under 37 CFR § 1.705(b). Such an application requires “[a] statement of the facts involved” and “[t]he fee set forth in § 1.18(e),” which currently is $200.

While applications to correct this Rule 704(d) error are routinely granted, another glitch in the PTA process imposes additional burdens on patent owners to ensure that the USPTO follows through with the correction. Although the USPTO should automatically issue a Certificate of Correction when its PTA redetermination results in a different PTA award (see MPEP § 2754), the USPTO sometimes fails to take that last, important step. This may be because there is no automatic mechanism that sends a patent to the Certificates of Correction branch once a PTA redetermination has been made. Thus, once their PTA applications have been granted, patent owners may need to contact someone in the Certificates of Correction branch themselves to advise them of the need for a Certification of Correction to complete the PTA correction process.

Undue Burdens On Patent Owners

The USPTO’s failure to confirm that an IDS filed after a response or RCE did not include a Rule 704(d) statement before charging a PTA deduction forces patent owners to bear the costs of this error. Patent owners need to have their own mechanisms in place to identify this PTA error, prepare and file an application for corrected PTA with a $200 fee, and follow up with the USPTO to ensure a Certificate of Correction is granted. This is an undue and unacceptable burden when systemic shortcomings in the USPTO’s own processes are at the root of PTA errors that impact numerous patent owners.

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.