C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.182

Questions not specifically provided for

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

All situations not specifically provided for in the regulations of this part will be decided in accordance with the merits of each situation by or under the authority of the Director, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed, and such decision will be communicated to the interested parties in writing. Any petition seeking a decision under this section must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f).

[69 FR 56544, Sept. 21, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: Japanese Found. for Cancer Rsch. v. Lee, 773 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Japanese Found. for Cancer Rsch. v. Lee, 773 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “On December 13, 2011, the Foundation’s attorney of record filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 to withdraw the statutory disclaimer.”
Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 2× “’ Opp’n at 6; 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 . On June 17, 2002, the PTO merged the second and third accepted requests under 37 C.”
Bayer Ag & Bayer Corp. v. Carlsbad Tech., Inc., 298 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “at 20,207, the PTO corrected its records to indicate that Bayer had disclaimed the term of the '444 patent beyond December 9, 2003 in accordance with 35 U.”
Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001). “6, 1992 Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 at 10 — 12); Trial Tr. at 2986:24 to 2989:2.”
Fina Tech., Inc. & Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. John A. Ewen v. Abbas Razavi, Intervenor, 265 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “04(f) (7th ed. rev. 1 2000). According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, “no changes will be made [by the Director to the order of inventors] except when a petition under 37 C.”
Helfgott & Karas, P.C. v. Q. Todd Dickenson, 209 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The Commissioner responded by treating this initial request “as a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 ,” and dismissed it as being untimely “under 37 C.”
Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “The petition referenced a general PTO regulation, 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 (1988), as authority for its filing.”
In re Yamazaki, 702 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, on April 8, 1999, with the Original Application still pending, Yamazaki submitted a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 requesting that the PTO withdraw the recorded terminal disclaimer (“Petition to Withdraw”).”
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elec. of Am., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 2d 874 (W.D. Tex. 2009). · cites it 2× “53 (b) and amend the specification of the 2nd Application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 to claim priority under 35 U.”
Aristocrat Tech. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. & IGT, 491 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Any reconsideration request should include a cover letter entitled “Renewed Petition Under 37 CFR 1.182. No petition fee is required.”
Cooper Tech., Co. v. Dudas, 247 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Va. 2007). “On June 19, 2007, the Patent Office denied Cooper’s 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 Petition and ordered that the reexamination proceed.”
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Lehman, 959 F. Supp. 539 (D.D.C. 1997). “Hallmark then filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 urging reversal of the decision to issue the Certificates.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.