Dans l’affaire Wyeth and Elan Pharma v. Kappos (as USPTO Director) (Fed. Cir. 2009) la Federal Circuit a déclaré que le United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a mal interprété le paragraphe 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A-C) concernant le calcul de l’extension de la durée d’un brevet suite à des retards dans le traitement des demandes en instances causés par le USPTO.
Selon ce paragraphe (en anglais):
- Part A guarantees “prompt†PTO responses. The section identifies specific types of PTO delays and the patent term is adjusted one-day for each day of PTO delay.
- Part B guarantees “no more than 3:year application pendency.†The section indicates that the patent term should be adjusted one-day for each day from the end of the three-year pendency until the patent issues.
- Part C guarantees that the patent term not be reduced based on interferences, secrecy orders, or appeals.
Selon 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) spécifie les limites du chevauchement possible entre les clauses A et B: “To the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.â€
Le litige concerne l’interprétation de la clause relative au chevauchement. Selon Wyeth, cette dernière aurait été privé de jours supplémentaires de vie de son brevet suite à l’interprétation limitative du USPTO.
Selon 37 C.F.R. 1.703(f), promulgué en 2000 et amendé en 2004 par le USPTO : “To the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.â€
La position du USPTO est que: “the statute is that the overlap is property avoided when the term is adjusted only by the greater of guarantee (A) or (B). “, alors que celle de Wyeth que l’extention du terme resultant de A s’ajoute à l’extension dû à B.
Selon le Federal Circuit:
This court detects no ambiguity in the terms “periods of delay†and “overlap.†Each term has an evident meaning within the context of section 154(b). The limitation in section 154(b) only arises when “periods of delay†resulting from violations of the three guarantees “overlap.†35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(A). Significantly, the A and B guarantees expressly designate when and for what period they each respectively apply. Thus, this court can easily detect any overlap by examining the delay periods covered by the A and B guarantees.
Le USPTO a annoncé qu’il retournait à la calculette suit au jugement du Federal Circuit en attendant de décider s’il allait en appel de la décision.