37 C.F.R. § 1.750

Determination of eligibility for extension of patent term

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A determination as to whether a patent is eligible for extension may be made by the Director solely on the basis of the representations contained in the application for extension filed in compliance with § 1.740 or § 1.790. This determination may be delegated to appropriate Patent and Trademark Office officials and may be made at any time before the certificate of extension is issued. The Director or other appropriate officials may require from applicant further information or make such independent inquiries as desired before a final determination is made on whether a patent is eligible for extension. In an application for extension filed in compliance with § 1.740, a notice will be mailed to applicant containing the determination as to the eligibility of the patent for extension and the period of time of the extension, if any. This notice shall constitute the final determination as to the eligibility and any period of extension of the patent. A single request for reconsideration of a final determination may be made if filed by the applicant within such time as may be set in the notice of final determination or, if no time is set, within one month from the date of the final determination. The time periods set forth herein are subject to the provisions of § 1.136.

[60 FR 25618, May 12, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2016 · leading case: Angiotech Pharm. Inc. v. Lee, 191 F. Supp. 3d 509 (E.D. Va. 2016).
Angiotech Pharm. Inc. v. Lee, 191 F. Supp. 3d 509 (E.D. Va. 2016). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.750 ("The Director or other appropriate officials may require from applicant further information or make such independent inquiries as desired before a final determination is made on whether a patent is eligible for extension.”
Medicines Co. v. Kappos, 731 F. Supp. 2d 470 (E.D. Va. 2010). “37 C.F.R. § 1.750 . There are no hearings of any kind to determine eligibility for an extension.”
Leeds v. Quigg, 745 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990). “mmissioner’s decisions in disciplinary matters; (6) Commissioner’s decisions concerning practice before the PTO; (7) Commissioner's decisions in regrades of the PTO registration examination; (8) Commissioner’s decisions concerning scientific and technical training requirements…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.