Iterative Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kappos
This text of Iterative Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kappos (Iterative Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kappos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________ ) ITERATIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1822 (RWR) ) DAVID KAPPOS, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
In light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Wyeth v.
Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has moved to
vacate a 263-day patent term adjustment it issued regarding a
patent that was assigned to Iterative Therapeutics, Inc. (“ITI”).
(“Def.’s Mot. for Vacatur of Patent Term Calc. and Remand to the
USPTO (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 1.) The USPTO and the Department of
Justice have decided not to seek further appellate review of the
Wyeth opinion, and the USPTO has published in the Federal
Register an interim procedure by which patentees may request a
recalculation of the term adjustment for their patents. The
procedure also could be applied to ITI’s request for a patent
term adjustment if the case were remanded. (Def.’s Mot. at 2.)
ITI argues that it would be prejudiced by a remand, claiming it
would have no recourse to challenge an erroneous recalculation,
and speculating that there could be future third-party challenges -2-
to the recalculation method used on remand causing more
litigation expense to ITI.
ITI’s arguments are misplaced. Even if exposure to a
potential future third-party challenge to a USPTO recalculation
were actually cognizable prejudice - - a proposition for which
ITI offers no support - - there is nothing that would immunize
from challenge a recalculation litigated in district court.
Preventing remand offers ITI no refuge as to that issue. And,
any challenge that ITI may want to make to a USPTO recalculation
on remand can be brought in this court as jurisdiction over the
case will be retained here during the remand.1 Therefore, it is
hereby
ORDERED that ITI’s existing patent term calculation be, and
hereby is, VACATED. It is further
ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the
USPTO for recalculation and adjustment of the disputed patent
term in accordance with the Wyeth opinion and the USPTO’s
published interim procedure for such calculations. This court
1 Moreover, affording the agency charged in the first instance with the duty to calculate patent terms the opportunity to perform the recalculation would allow for a well-developed record below for this court to review should ITI seek to challenge the recalculation. To the extent ITI opposes remand because it wants to “settle[] . . . this case expeditiously” (Pl.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause and Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. at 4.), it can pursue settlement at any time regardless of the forum in which its challenge is pending. -3-
will retain jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to the
recalculation.
SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2010.
/s/ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Iterative Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kappos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iterative-therapeutics-inc-v-kappos-dcd-2010.