35 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 298
cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021).
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021). “35 U. S. C. §§1 (a), 2(a)(1). Congress has vested the “powers and duties” of the PTO in a sole Director appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
Figueroa v. United States, 466 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “35 U.S.C. § 1 (a) (2000) (“In carrying out its functions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall be subject to the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce.”
Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). “" 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2(a)(1). To obtain a patent, an inventor submits an application describing the proposed patent claims to the Patent Office.”
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006). “792 , codified at 35 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp.”
Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 473 (D.N.J. 1993). “(“Keer”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), allegedly arising under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.”
Varma v. Gutierrez, 421 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2006). “” 35 U.S.C. § 1 (a) (2000). Thus, while the USPTO is a part of the DOC, it cannot be said, as the plaintiff claims, that Secretary Gutierrez “is responsible for personnel action, omissions, and practices within the U.”
Inre: Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Patents Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., 66 Stat. 792 (July 19, 1952)), which now includes § 112(b), 6 cases continued the focus on the claim language, and what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim to mean, 5 The current version of § 112(b) states in full:…”
Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc. & Brooks Strong, 326 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “1 The complaint stated that the jurisdictional bases were “the patent laws of the United States, more particularly, Title 35 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq.” and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 , et seq.”
Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Barr Labs., Inc., 592 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “792 (current version at 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ). It was designed to prevent an unfair result under prior law whereby a patentee's compliance with an examiner's incorrect restriction requirement (separating out supposedly patentably distinct inventions that were in fact the same…”
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “, and infringed its design patent under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (The Patent Act claim was later dropped.”
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Lsi Corp., 926 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “" 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2. Almost every year the number of submitted patent applications has increased, from approximately 100,000 in 1980 to nearly 650,000 in 2018.”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 557 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Plaintiff-Appellee Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly") sued Teva for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 .”
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.