37 C.F.R. § 41.3

Petitions

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

(a) Deciding official. Petitions must be addressed to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge. A panel or an administrative patent judge may certify a question of policy to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge for decision. The Chief Administrative Patent Judge may delegate authority to decide petitions.

(b) Scope. This section covers petitions on matters pending before the Board (§§ 41.35, 41.64, 41.103, and 41.205); otherwise, see §§ 1.181 to 1.183 of this title. The following matters are not subject to petition:

(1) Issues committed by statute to a panel, and

(2) In pending contested cases, procedural issues. See § 41.121(a)(3) and § 41.125(c).

(c) Petition fee. The fee set in § 41.20(a) must accompany any petition under this section except no fee is required for a petition under this section seeking supervisory review.

(d) Effect on proceeding. The filing of a petition does not stay the time for any other action in a Board proceeding.

(e) Time for action. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this part or as the Board may authorize in writing, a party may:

(i) File the petition within 14 days from the date of the action from which the party is requesting relief, and

(ii) File any request for reconsideration of a petition decision within 14 days of the decision on petition or such other time as the Board may set.

(2) A party may not file an opposition or a reply to a petition without Board authorization.

[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 69 FR 58260, Sept. 30, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2020 · leading case: Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co., 477 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co., 477 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “Petitions practice before the Board is governed by 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 , which provides the Board with authority to decide “petitions on matters pending before the Board (§§ 41.”

Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co. of the Weizmann Inst. of Sci., 467 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D. Va. 2006). · cites it 3× “125 (c), and filed a petition requesting the Chief Administrative Judge to instruct the Board to withdraw its denial of Enzo’s Motion for Benefit (“Petition to CAJ”), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 . Both the Request for Rehearing and the Petition to CAJ rested on Enzo’s assertion…”

Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020). “” 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 (a)(3) (“petitions involving ac- tions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” must be ad- dressed pursuant to § 41.”

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.