Legal Opinion
Maass v. Lee
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided May 17, 2016No. Case No. 1:16-cv-66PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
T. S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge
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),…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. MatalDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2018
- Byrnes v. ByrnesUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · 2021
- Porter v. Braskem America, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2021