Guymon v. Squires: The 180-Day Patent Term Adjustment Deadline
A patent may issue with hundreds or even thousands of days of patent term adjustment. If the United States Patent and Trademark Office calculates those days incorrectly, however, the patent owner has only a limited path to challenge the result. A new Federal Circuit decision shows how unforgiving that path can be.
In Guymon v. Squires, decided September 10, 2026, a patent owner tried to challenge the USPTO’s patent term adjustment determination. His paper complaint reached the courthouse two days after the statutory deadline. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal, concluding that an attempted email filing did not satisfy the court’s filing rules and that the facts did not support equitable tolling.
The decision is nonprecedential, but its operational lesson is important for patent owners and prosecution counsel: a patent term adjustment deadline should be treated as a hard, independently docketed deadline—not as a task to address on the final day.
A two-day delay ended the PTA challenge
John Lewis Guymon Jr. owned U.S. Patent No. 10,943,030. When the patent issued, the USPTO awarded 1,525 days of patent term adjustment, commonly called PTA. Guymon contended that the correct adjustment was 2,327 days and requested reconsideration from the USPTO Director.
The Director denied reconsideration on March 28, 2023. Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4)(A), an applicant dissatisfied with that decision has an exclusive remedy: a civil action against the Director in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia filed within 180 days. Applying the federal time-computation rule, the court identified September 25, 2023, as Guymon’s deadline.
On September 25, Guymon attempted to file by email after learning that a self-represented litigant could not electronically file an initiating document without permission. He also sent a paper copy by overnight delivery. The clerk received and filed the paper complaint on September 27—two days late.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. In its September 10 opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(4), which prevents rejection of a paper solely because of a defect in its “form,” did not make the email effective. The problem was the unauthorized method of filing, not merely the complaint’s formatting or content. The permitted paper filing was not completed until the clerk received it after the deadline.
What the Federal Circuit did—and did not—decide
The court held that the complaint was untimely and that dismissal at the pleading stage was proper because the necessary dates appeared on the face of the complaint and the court record. It also concluded that Guymon had not alleged facts supporting equitable tolling.
That equitable-tolling point should be stated carefully. The panel did not decide whether the 180-day period can ever be equitably tolled. It assumed the issue could be considered and found no adequate showing in this case. A party seeking tolling generally must show diligent pursuit of its rights and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. Waiting until the deadline to investigate the court’s filing requirements did not satisfy that standard.
The opinion therefore should not be read as a precedential ruling that equitable tolling is categorically unavailable. It is a practical warning that ordinary filing mistakes, unfamiliarity with local rules, or last-day complications may not rescue a late PTA action.
Patent term adjustment involves two separate deadline systems
Patent owners should distinguish between the administrative request made to the USPTO and a later civil action challenging the Director’s decision.
Requesting reconsideration from the USPTO
Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.705, a request for reconsideration of the PTA shown on a patent generally must be filed within two months of the patent’s grant date. That two-month period may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). The request must include the required fee and a statement identifying the adjustment sought, the relevant dates, and the basis for the calculation.
The USPTO’s MPEP § 2734 guidance explains the reconsideration process, including how the agency may issue a redetermination and when a denial becomes the Director’s decision for purposes of judicial review. The precise character of the USPTO action matters because the 180-day judicial-review period runs from the Director’s decision on the reconsideration request.
Seeking judicial review after the Director’s decision
The second deadline is statutory. Section 154(b)(4)(A) requires the civil action to be filed in the Eastern District of Virginia within 180 days after the Director’s decision. The statute also states that this period may not be changed by regulation.
These are not interchangeable deadlines. An extension potentially available for the initial USPTO reconsideration period does not automatically extend the later 180-day period for filing suit. Counsel should open a new docket entry as soon as the Director’s decision arrives, verify the correct trigger date, calculate the deadline under the applicable federal rules, and confirm the court’s filing procedures well in advance.
Why a PTA calculation can have real business value
PTA compensates for specified USPTO delays during examination, subject to statutory limitations and reductions for applicant delay. It is different from patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which concerns certain regulatory-review delays for qualifying products.
For a patent covering a commercially important product or licensing program, each additional day near the end of the term may carry meaningful value. The importance depends on the patent’s claims, enforceability, product life cycle, market position, and existing agreements. A longer term is not automatically valuable, but a calculation error involving hundreds of days can deserve careful review.
That review should connect prosecution records with the patent owner’s broader patent strategy. Businesses should also consider whether expiration dates affect licensing, royalty provisions, enforcement decisions, and transaction diligence.
A practical PTA docketing protocol
The safest process begins before the patent issues. When a notice of allowance arrives, prosecution counsel and the patent owner can review the expected term, terminal disclaimers, applicant-delay events, and any unusual periods of USPTO delay. When the patent grants, they should compare the agency’s PTA figure with their own calculation and preserve the underlying prosecution timeline.
If the owner may seek reconsideration, the team should docket the two-month USPTO deadline and any permissible extension separately. If the Director later denies reconsideration, the team should immediately docket the 180-day civil-action deadline, use at least one independent verification, and create an internal filing date comfortably before the statutory cutoff.
The filing team should also confirm:
- which court has exclusive jurisdiction;
- who must be named as the defendant;
- whether counsel is admitted or needs local support;
- the court’s current electronic-filing and initiating-document rules;
- how filing is completed if the electronic system is unavailable; and
- who will verify that the complaint was accepted and docketed.
The key distinction in Guymon was between trying to transmit a complaint and actually filing it through a permitted method. A confirmation email, overnight tracking number, or attempted upload is not necessarily proof that a case has been commenced.
What patent owners should take from Guymon
Guymon v. Squires did not resolve the merits of the disputed PTA calculation. The patent owner lost the opportunity to obtain that review because the complaint was late. That makes the case a useful reminder that procedural control is part of protecting patent value.
Patent owners should review PTA when a patent issues, calendar the administrative and judicial deadlines as separate events, and avoid waiting until the final day to learn a tribunal’s filing requirements. For companies managing multiple patents, those steps should be part of a repeatable portfolio process rather than an improvised response to a disputed calculation.
Tucker Law assists inventors and businesses with patent applications and prosecution, portfolio strategy, licensing, and patent disputes. If a patent has issued with a questionable term calculation—or if a USPTO decision may start a judicial-review clock—contact Tucker Law promptly so the available options and deadlines can be evaluated.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Patent term calculations and filing deadlines depend on the governing statute, regulations, agency action, prosecution history, and procedural rules applicable to the matter.
