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. § 42.62

Applicability of the Federal rules of evidence

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

(a) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to a proceeding.

(b) Exclusions. Those portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to criminal proceedings, juries, and other matters not relevant to proceedings under this subpart shall not apply.

(c) Modifications in terminology. Unless otherwise clear from context, the following terms of the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed as indicated:

Appellate court means United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Civil action, civil proceeding, and action mean a proceeding before the Board under part 42.

Courts of the United States, U.S. Magistrate,court, trial court,trier of fact, and judge mean Board.

Hearing means, as defined in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(5), the time for taking testimony.

Judicial notice means official notice.

Trial or hearing in Federal Rule of Evidence 807 means the time for taking testimony.

(d) In determining foreign law, the Board may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case: Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Cuozzo’s recognition that IPRs are “hybrid” proceedings that are partly court- like and partly “specialized administrative proceeding[s],” 18 AQUA PRODUCTS, INC. v.”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “51 , apply the Federal Rules of Evidence, 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 (a), and hear oral arguments, 37 C.”
Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “, 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 . To the extent Samsung argues that the Board erred by excluding the testimony as speculative, moreover, we see no basis to say that the Board abused its discretion.”
Meenaxi Enter., Inc. v. the Coca-Cola Co., 38 F.4th 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “”), and the Federal Rules of Evidence generally ap- ply to Board proceedings, 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 (a). The failure to provide any basis for their statements of understanding deprives this testimony of evidentiary weight.”
Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 820 F.3d 432 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Once IPR is instituted, unlike in inter partes reexamina- tions, the Board applies the Federal Rules of Evidence, 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 (a), it oversees various discovery obliga- tions, 37 C.”
McCoy v. Heal Sys., LLC (Fed. Cir. 2021). “, 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ; FED. R. EVID. 702. As a threshold matter, we are not convinced that the Board expressly included expert skill in its definition of the POSA.”
Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2021). “37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 (a), 42.100(a) (2020).”
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.