C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 42—TRIAL PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD › Subpart A—Trial Practice and Procedure

37 C.F.R. § 42.1

Policy

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

(a) Scope. Part 42 governs proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sections 1.4, 1.7, 1.14, 1.16, 1.22, 1.23, 1.25, 1.26, 1.32, 1.34, and 1.36 of this chapter also apply to proceedings before the Board, as do other sections of part 1 of this chapter that are incorporated by reference into this part.

(b) Construction. This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.

(c) Decorum. Every party must act with courtesy and decorum in all proceedings before the Board, including in interactions with other parties.

(d) Evidentiary standard. The default evidentiary standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316 (b).”
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (a) (2016). In addressing “Jurisdiction” for these proceedings, Part 42 expressly requires that “[a] petition to institute a trial must be filed with the Board consistent with any time period required by statute.”
Biodelivery Scis. Int'l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., 935 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 316 (b)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b) (“This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive reso- lution of every proceeding.”
Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “157 (2005) (interferences); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1 (a), 42.2, 42.53 (2013) (derivation proceedings and proceedings under the AIA).”
Mayne Pharma Int'l Pty v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “48,756 , 48,759 ; then quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b) ). Applying this rule, the Board found no indication of intentional concealment, no bad faith on MSD's part, no attempt to circumvent the estoppel rules, or any other material benefit to it in its delay in naming MCI as real…”
Click-To-Call Tech., Lp v. Oracle Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (a) (2016). In addressing “Jurisdiction” for these proceedings, Part 42 expressly requires that “[a] petition to institute a trial must be filed with the Board consistent with any time period required by statute.”
Twitter, Inc. v. Vidstream LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020). “”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (d) (“The default evidentiary standard is a preponderance of the evidence.”
Am. Nat'l v. Sleep No. Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2022). “(quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b)). We agree with the Board’s thoughtful analysis of this issue in Lectrosonics.”
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.