37 C.F.R. § 1.183
Suspension of rules
In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires, any requirement of the regulations in this part which is not a requirement of the statutes may be suspended or waived by the Director or the Director's designee, sua sponte, or on petition of the interested party, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed. Any petition under this section must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2022 · leading case: Target Training International, Ltd. v. Lee
Target Training International, Ltd. v. Lee (2014)
“” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 . The Director argues that a decision pursuant to this rule falls within the exception to judicial review for a decision “committed to agency discretion by law” in 5 U.”
Helfgott & Karas, P.C., and Dov Sheffer and R.S.R. Adtec Ltd. v. Q. Todd Dickenson, Director of the United States Patent (2000)
“Helfgott then wrote a letter in early October 1997 to the Assistant Commissioner of Patents, asking him “to look into the matter in the interests of justice and equity” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 , which allows the Commissioner to suspend nonstatutory rules “in an…”
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu (2019)
“…index="43" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=37%20C.F.R.%20%C2%A7%201.183"> 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 (2013). Finally, the patent applicant may seek judicial review in federal district court. <span cl”
Burandt v. Dudas (2008)
“Burandt filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 , which provides that: In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires, any requirement of the regulations in this part which is.”
Stephen Wyden v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (1986)
“Those sections are also the authorization for the Commissioner's promulgation of regulations, which are found in 37 CFR, pertaining to "the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before the Patent and Trademark…”
Baxter International, Inc., and Baxter Healthcare Corporation v. McGaw Inc., Defendant-Cross (1998)
“' Baxter next argues that the PTO nonetheless had the discretion to suspend its regulations, sua sponte, in the interests of justice under 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 . Section 1.183 provides in relevant part: “In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires, a requirement of the…”
Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC (2012)
“11, Petition Under 37 CFR § 1.183 Suspension of Rules (the “Petition”).”
StairMaster Sports/Medical Products, Inc. v. Groupe Procycle, Inc. (1998)
“Additionally, StairMaster maintains Procycle has cited no authority that the PTO is precluded from implicitly waiving any *289 perceived deficiencies in the supplemental declarations to the reissue application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 . 16 Lastly, StairMaster argues that certain…”
Margolis v. Banner (1979)
“] The portion of the petition relating to 37 CFR 1.183, which was a request to waive 37 CFR 1.”
In Re Michael Ben Graves (1995)
“See 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 (in an extraordinary situation, the Commissioner may suspend or waive any requirement of the rules not required by statute); Eckey v.”
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v. Kappos (2013)
“…or the Director’s designee” “[i]n an extraordinary situation, when justice requires.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.183 (2013). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daiichi is the assignee of the ’205, ’014, and 135 patents.2d Am. Compl. ¶ 8. Patent Application Serial No. 10/481,262 issued as the ’205…”
Tafas v. Dudas (2008)
“37 C.F.R. § 1.183 (2006). The 2 + 1 Rule also applies retroactively to patent applications already filed before the effective date of the Final Rules.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.