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. § 1.99

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–2003 · leading case: BEI Tech., INC. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 268 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BEI Tech., INC. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 268 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× ““A Unitary Mass of Piezoelectric Material” In a Supplemental Information Disclosure Statement Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.99 15 filed February 6, 1985, the applicants stated in distinguishing the Hart 100 patent: [the Hart] device is constructed from a plurality of separate quartz…”
Halliburton Co. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 722 F. Supp. 324 (S.D. Tex. 1989). “37 C.F.R. § 1.99 expressly provides a procedure for "updating of prior art statements.”
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.