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 H—Inter Partes Reexamination of Patents That Issued From an Original Application Filed in the United States on or After November 29, 1999

37 C.F.R. § 1.937

Conduct of inter partes reexamination

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

(a) All inter partes reexamination proceedings, including any appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office, unless the Director makes a determination that there is good cause for suspending the reexamination proceeding.

(b) The inter partes reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with §§ 1.104 through 1.116, the sections governing the application examination process, and will result in the issuance of an inter partes reexamination certificate under § 1.997, except as otherwise provided.

(c) All communications between the Office and the parties to the inter partes reexamination which are directed to the merits of the proceeding must be in writing and filed with the Office for entry into the record of the proceeding.

(d) A petition in an inter partes reexamination proceeding must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(c)(6), except for petitions under § 1.956 to extend the period for response by a patent owner, petitions under § 1.958 to accept a delayed response by a patent owner, petitions under § 1.78 to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim, and petitions under § 1.530(l) for correction of inventorship in a reexamination proceeding.

[65 FR 76777, as amended at 77 FR 46628, Aug. 6, 2012; 77 FR 48853, Aug. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2021 · leading case: Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor Corporation (2021) cafc · cites it 2× “See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.937 (b) (“The inter partes reexamination proceeding will be conducted in ac- cordance with [37 C.”
Belkin International, Inc. v. Kappos (2012) cafc “No right to review exists as to that claim, because it will be reexamined in view of all prior art during the reexamination under 37 CFR 1.937. But that provision does not discuss the preclusive effect of a determination that an issue does not raise a substantial new question of…”
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.