37 C.F.R. § 42.22

Content of petitions and motions

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

(a) Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include:

(1) A statement of the precise relief requested; and

(2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.

(b) Relief requested. Where a rule in part 1 of this title ordinarily governs the relief sought, the petition or motion must make any showings required under that rule in addition to any showings required in this part.

(c) Statement of material facts. Each petition or motion may include a statement of material fact. Each material fact preferably shall be set forth as a separately numbered sentence with specific citations to the portions of the record that support the fact.

(d) The Board may order additional showings or explanations as a condition for authorizing a motion (see § 42.20(b)).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (2023) cafc “§ 312 (a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 (a)(2), 42.104(b)(3)-(4); Harmonic Inc.”

Rembrandt Diagnostics, Lp v. Alere, Inc. (2023) cafc “§ 312 (a)(3)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 (a). Following institution, the patent owner may submit a response with supporting factual evidence and ex- pert opinions.”

Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. (2014) wiwd “§§ 311 (b), 316(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 , 42.51, 42.53, 42.70.”

Mmodal LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (2021) cafc · cites it 2× “2 For that reason, the Board stated, even aside from the dispute about claim construction, MModal’s challenge failed because MModal did not provide “[a] full statement of the reasons for relief requested, including a detailed ex- planation of the significance of the evidence…”

Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner (2025) cafc · cites it 2× “SELNER be made in a separate motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 , accompanied by the processing fee as well as an application data sheet identifying each inventor.”

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation (2018) cafc “See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 (a)(2); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.”

Amc Multi-Cinema, Inc v. Fall Line Patents, LLC (2021) cafc “”); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 (a)(2) (requiring a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed expla- nation of the significance of the evidence including mate- rial facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent”), 42.”

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (2021) cafc “§ 312 (a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 (a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)–(5); Harmonic Inc.”

Qiagen North American Holdings v. Handylab, Inc. (2021) cafc “§ 312 (a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 (a)(2) (re- quiring “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief re- quested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent”); 37 C.”

Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc. (2022) cafc “§ 312 (a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 (a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.”

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC (2023) cafc “44” to -- 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 --. On page 8, footnote 2, change “37 C.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.