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 C—Post-Grant Review

37 C.F.R. § 42.200

Procedure; pendency

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

(a) A post-grant review is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part.

(b) In a post-grant review proceeding, a claim of a patent, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend under § 42.221, shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the post-grant review proceeding will be considered.

(c) A post-grant review proceeding shall be administered such that pendency before the Board after institution is normally no more than one year. The time can be extended by up to six months for good cause by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, or adjusted by the Board in the case of joinder.

(d) Interferences commenced before September 16, 2012, shall proceed under part 41 of this chapter except as the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, acting on behalf of the Director, may otherwise order in the interests-of-justice.

[77 FR 48729, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 18766, Apr. 1, 2016; 83 FR 51358, Oct. 11, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: Mkt.-Alerts Pty. Ltd. v. Bloomberg Fin. L.P., 922 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Del. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mkt.-Alerts Pty. Ltd. v. Bloomberg Fin. L.P., 922 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Del. 2013). “37 C.F.R. § 42.200 (c) (2012). Here, the petitioning defendants filed their request for CBM review on October 15, 2012, and Market-Alerts was notified of the petition on October 22, 2012.”
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., 86 F.4th 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 326 (a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 (c), the Board had one year to issue a Final Written Decision subject to a six-month extension for “good cause.”
Advance Med. Designs, Inc. v. Corbin Clinical Resources, LLC (D. Maryland 2025). “” ECF 107-1 (PTAB Decision Denying PGR) at 12 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 (b) (emphasis added)).”
Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc. (D. Del. 2026). “See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200 (c). Considering the timing of those proceedings, the potential for the IPRs, EPR, and/or PGR to significantly affect the litigation is high.”
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.