37 C.F.R. § 41.152

Applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence

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

(a) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to contested cases.

(b) Exclusions. Those portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to criminal proceedings, juries, and other matters not relevant to proceedings under this subpart shall not apply.

(c) Modifications in terminology. Unless otherwise clear from context, the following terms of the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed as indicated:

Appellate court means United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a United States district court when judicial review is under 35 U.S.C. 146.

Civil action, civil proceeding, action, and trial mean contested case.

Courts of the United States, U.S. Magistrate, court, trial court, and trier of fact mean Board.

Hearing means:

(i) In Federal Rule of Evidence 703, the time when the expert testifies.

(ii) In Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(5), the time for taking testimony.

Judge means the Board.

Judicial notice means official notice.

Trial or hearing means, in Federal Rule of Evidence 807, the time for taking testimony.

(d) The Board, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2014 · leading case: Michael S. Brown, Joseph L. Goldstein, & Yuval Reiss v. Mariano Barbacid & Veeraswamy Manne, 436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michael S. Brown, Joseph L. Goldstein, & Yuval Reiss v. Mariano Barbacid & Veeraswamy Manne, 436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “See abo 37 C.F.R. § 41.152 (a) (2005) ("Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to contested cases.”

Robert D. Brand, Capital Mach. Co., Inc., & Indiana Forge, LLC v. Thomas A. Miller, Darrel C. Pinkston, & Miller Veneers, Inc., 487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “37 C.F.R. § 41.152 . These detailed regulations governing contested cases highlight the Board’s role in such cases as an impartial adjudicator of an adversarial dispute between two parties.”

Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 778 (D. Del. 2014). “37 C.F.R. § 41.152 (2006). Furthermore, there is *786 opportunity for limited discovery.”

Brand v. Miller (Fed. Cir. 2007). “37 C.F.R. § 41.152 . These detailed regulations governing contested cases highlight the Board’s role in such cases as an impartial adjudicator of an adversarial dispute between two parties.”

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.