Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, 790 F.3d 1377

Mohsenzadeh filed U.S. application No. 09/899,905 (’905) on July 6, 2001 containing multiple inventions; PTO issued a restriction requirement but did not mail it until September 21, 2006 (long after the 14‑month deadline).
Mohsenzadeh elected certain claims from the ’905 application; those elected claims issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,742,984 (’984) on June 22, 2010; the PTO granted 2,104 days of patent‑term adjustment (including 1,476 days of A Delay for the late restriction notice).
Mohsenzadeh later filed two divisional applications (filed Jan 8, 2010) corresponding to other inventions identified in the original restriction requirement; they issued as patents ’362 (Jan 8, 2013) and ’963 (Mar 19, 2013).
The PTO granted 0 days of patent‑term adjustment for both divisional patents, relying on 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(c)(14), which disallows counting delays that occurred before the divisional’s actual filing date.
Mohsenzadeh sought reconsideration and then sued under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A); the government moved for summary judgment arguing § 154(b)(1)(A) applies only to the application that directly yielded the patent.
The district court granted summary judgment for the government, holding the statute’s plain language limits A Delay to the application that produced the patent; this appeal followed.

Issue	Mohsenzadeh's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether A Delay under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A) for a late notice (e.g., restriction) in a parent application must be credited to divisional patents that claim priority to that parent	The statute’s language (use of “an original patent” and “an application”) shows Congress intended delays tied to one application to be applied to any patents affected by that delay, including continuations/divisionals	§ 154(b)(1)(A) contemplates the single application that ripens into “an original patent”; Congress knew how to and elsewhere addressed parent/continuing applications explicitly, so delays do not carry over; PTO regulation is reasonable	The court held the plain language limits A Delay to the application that directly produced the patent; divisional patents are not entitled to the parent’s A Delay

Fox Grp., Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (summary judgment reviewed under regional circuit law; cited for procedural standard)
Fraternal Order of Police Metro Transit Police Labor Comm. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 780 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard: view facts favorably to nonmoving party)
AD Global Fund, LLC v. United States, 481 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed without deference)
Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) (canon that Congress acts intentionally when it includes language in one section but omits it in another)
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994) (same canon regarding statutory omission/variation)