Maass v. Lee

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for Partial Dismissal. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 5/17/16. Copy mailed: yes(klau, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

JORGE A. MAASS,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)

V.

)

MICHELLE K. LEE,
Defendant.

CaseNo. l:16-cv-66

)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The pro se plaintiff, owner of United States Patent No. 8,533,097 ("the '097 patent"),
brings this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A), arguing that the United States Patent and

Trademark Office ("PTO") awarded him an inadequate patent term adjustment ("PTA") on two
grounds. Specifically, plaintiff argues (i) that plaintiff should be awarded credit for time
attributable to various delays caused by the PTO during the continued examination of the '097

patent application at plaintiffs request pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 132(b), and (ii) that the time
period resulting from plaintiffs filing of a supplemental amendment at the patent examiner's
request should not be characterized as applicant delay. The PTO has filed a motion to dismiss the
first of these two grounds for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. As

the parties have fully briefed the issue, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process,
the matter is now ripe for disposition.
L

Before setting forth the pertinent facts, it is useful to describe briefly the relevant
statutory context. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), a patent has a term of twenty years from the
patent application's filing date, not the date the patent issues. Thus, because it takes time to
process a patent application, the enforceable term for a patent is effectively less than 20 years. In
1