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. § 42.208

Institution of post-grant review

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

(a) When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.

(b) At any time prior to institution of post-grant review, the Board may deny all grounds for unpatentability for all of the challenged claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board decision not to institute post-grant review.

(c) Post-grant review shall not be instituted unless the Board decides that the information presented in the petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board's decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause.

(d) Additional grounds. Sufficient grounds under § 42.208(c) may be a showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications.

[77 FR 48729, Aug. 14, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 18766, Apr. 1, 2016; 85 FR 79129, Dec. 9, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2017 · leading case: Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “§§ 324 (a), 325(e)(1), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 . The IPR statutes and PGR statutes (as adopted into the CBM framework) were all enacted simul- taneously in the AIA.”
Mkt.-Alerts Pty. Ltd. v. Bloomberg Fin. L.P., 922 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Del. 2013). “Indeed, this test is now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 (c) (2012) and 35 U.S.”
Segin Sys., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2014). “37 C.F.R. § 42.208 (c). On the one' hand, Defendants claim that CBM review is granted 80% of the time.”
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.