Timeline for What will be the expiry of Continuation patent
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://patents.stackexchange.com/ with https://patents.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2016 at 3:33 | comment | added | Rahul Patel | In above case court acknowledged that if the divisional patent is born due to restriction requirement, it can have different expiry. There might be better case study but I didn't came across. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 3:30 | comment | added | Rahul Patel | I never doubted the entitlement of the filing date. I am talking about the term that is extending beyond the expiry of parent patent due to patent term adjustment and I think it is perfectly ok. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | zip | I don't know where in the cited article you get that information from. Could you specify? I can't see why a restriction would change anything to the entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of the original application as conferred by 35 U.S.C. 121. It is in the nature of a divisional that it runs from the filing date of the parent. It would be no divisional otherwise. There could be exceptions, but those would be due to an extension of patent term (35 U.S.C. 156, e. g. for pharmaceuticals). | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 11:39 | comment | added | Rahul Patel | I think you are wrong. If divisional due to restriction requirement is having different effect. patentdocs.org/2015/06/… | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 9:08 | comment | added | zip | Yes indeed also for divisionals | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 8:09 | comment | added | Rahul Patel | How about divisional patents? Same? | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 22:55 | history | answered | zip | CC BY-SA 3.0 |