Exelixis, Inc. v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EXELIXIS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director,
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________
2013-1175
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in No. 12-CV-0096, Judge T.
S. Ellis, III.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EXELIXIS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director,
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2013-1198
______________________

-- 1 of 3 --

EXELIXIS, INC. v. LEE 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in No. 12-CV-0574, Judge
Leonie M. Brinkema.
______________________
Decided: January 15, 2014
______________________
J. MICHAEL HUGET , Honigman Miller Schwartz and
Cohn, LLP, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued for the Ex-
elixis, Inc. With him on the brief were HEIDI M. BERVEN,
N OEL E. D AY , J ONATHAN P. O’BRIEN, D EBORAH J.
SWEDLOW, and EMILY J. T AIT . Of counsel on the brief
were T IMOTHY C. BICKHAM and HOUDA MORAD Steptoe
and Johnson LLP, of Washington, DC.
D ANA K AERSVANG, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, of Washing-
ton, DC, argued for Michelle K. Lee, Deputy Director,
United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on
the brief were STUART F. D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attor-
ney General, N EIL H. MAC B RIDE, United States Attorney,
and SCOTT R. MCI NTOSH , Attorney. Of counsel on the
brief were BERNARD J. K NIGHT , J R., General Counsel,
N ATHAN K. K ELLEY , Deputy Solicitor, and BRIAN T.
RACILLA and MONICA B. L ATEEF , Associate Solicitors,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexan-
dria, Virginia.
T ARA CHAND SINGHAL , of Torrance, California, pro se,
as amicus curiae.
D AVID P. F RAZIER and J ENNIFER A. J OHNSON, Finne-
gan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of
Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Abb Vie Biotherapeu-
tics Inc.
______________________

-- 2 of 3 --

EXELIXIS, INC. v. LEE 3
Before N EWMAN, D YK, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Exelixis, Inc., filed suits in the Eastern District of
Virginia that challenged the determination by the Patent
and Trademark Office of how much time to add, under 35
U.S.C. § 154(b), to the otherwise-applicable terms of two
patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,067,436 and 7,989,622.
Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, 919 F. Supp. 2d 689 (E.D. Va.
2013) (the ’436 patent suit); Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos, 906
F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Va. 2012) (the ’622 patent suit).
Exelixis claimed that the PTO’s determinations of patent
term adjustment rested on two mistaken interpretations
of subparagraph 154(b)(1)(B) as it applies to requests for
continuing examination under 35 U.S.C. § 132(b). After a
final judgment in favor of Exelixis, those issues are now
before us on appeal.
We address those two interpretations in our decision
today in Novartis AG v. Lee, No. 13-1160 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
15, 2014). Based on the ruling in Novartis, we vacate the
judgments as to patent term adjustment for the ’436 and
’622 patents in this case and remand for redetermination
of the proper adjustments in accordance with Novartis.
No costs.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --