extension calculated pursuant to Section 156. Teva's motion to dismiss was consequently denied because "a terminally disclaimed patent is eligible for extension under [Section] 156." The case is interesting because the patentee in the first instance had expressly disclaimed term subsequent to 2003 to get the patent granted. However, the holding of this case does not apply to Patent Term Adjustment granted under 35 U.S.C. 154. Such term adjustments will be subject to any terminal disclaimer that has been filed. There is now a similar case wherein a company was given extension under S.156 and the generic entrant arguing against such extension between Merck and Hi-tech for the drug dorzolamide (Trusopt). Here too, the first company (Merck) had filed a standard form terminal disclaimer. This patent was later given an extension and became the crux of the litigation. FDA approval extension The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Hatch-Waxman Act) of 1984 provides patent holders on approved patented products with an extended term of protection under the patent to compensate for the delay in obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. ruled that patents extended under Hatch-Waxman are still eligible to URAA term extension. However, patents in force on June 8, 1995 solely because of the Hatch-Waxman term adjustment are not eligible. See also Supplementary protection certificate References Further reading For a detailed description of the laws and rules governing patent terms in the U.S., see the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Chapter 2700. External links - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights 2701 Patent Term - 2700 Patent Terms and Extensions in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), USPTO USPTO PTA calculation Calculating Patent Term Adjustment Post-Novartis PTA determination United States patent law Time in government