35 U.S.C. § 141

Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Examinations.—An applicant who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(a) may appeal the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. By filing such an appeal, the applicant waives his or her right to proceed under section 145.(b)Reexaminations.—A patent owner who is dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal of a reexamination to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(b) may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.(c)Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews.—A party to an inter partes review or a post-grant review who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) or 328(a) (as the case may be) may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.(d)Derivation Proceedings.—A party to a derivation proceeding who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the proceeding may appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but such appeal shall be dismissed if any adverse party to such derivation proceeding, within 20 days after the appellant has filed notice of appeal in accordance with section 142, files notice with the Director that the party elects to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 146. If the appellant does not, within 30 days after the filing of such notice by the adverse party, file a civil action under section 146, the Board’s decision shall govern the further proceedings in the case.(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 802; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 163(a)(7), (b)(2), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 49, 50; Pub. L. 98–622, title II, § 203(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3387; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§ 4605(c), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–571, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §§ 13106(c), 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1901, 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, § 7(c)(1), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 314.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 59a (R.S. 4911, amended (1) Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 273, § 8, 44 Stat. 1336, (2) Mar. 2, 1929, ch. 488, § 2a, 45 Stat. 1476, (3) Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 451, § 3, 53 Stat. 1212).

Changes in language are made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Pub. L. 112–29 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2002—Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 107–273, § 13106(c), inserted “, or a third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, who is” after “patent owner” in third sentence.

1999—Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B), substituted “Director” for “Commissioner”.

Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4605(c)], inserted after second sentence “A patent owner in any reexamination proceeding dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 may appeal the decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

1984—Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(1)(A), substituted “in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 of this title may appeal the decision” for “of the Board of Patent Appeals may appeal” in first sentence.

Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(1)(B), substituted “. By filing such an appeal the applicant waives his or her right” for “, thereby waiving his right” in first sentence.

Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(2)(A), substituted “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on the interference may appeal the decision” for “board of patent interferences on the question of priority of appeal” in second sentence.

Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(2)(B), substituted “In accordance with” for “according to” in second sentence.

Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(2)(C), substituted “the party” for “he” in second sentence.

Pub. L. 98–622, § 203(a)(3), reenacted last sentence with minor changes in wording.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164, § 163(b)(2), substituted “Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” for “Court of Customs and Patent Appeals” in section catchline.

Pub. L. 97–164, § 163(a)(7), substituted “Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” for “Court of Customs and Patent Appeals” in two places.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, with certain exceptions, see section 7(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 6 of this title.

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by section 13106(c) of Pub. L. 107–273 applicable with respect to any reexamination proceeding commenced on or after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 13106(d) of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as a note under section 134 of this title.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4605(c)] of Pub. L. 106–113 applicable to any reexamination filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 13202(d) of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as a note under section 134 of this title.

Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4605(c)] of Pub. L. 106–113 effective Nov. 29, 1999, and applicable to any patent issuing from an original application filed in the United States on or after that date, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4608(a)] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 41 of this title.

Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)] of Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–622 effective three months after Nov. 8, 1984, see section 207 of Pub. L. 98–622, set out as a note under section 41 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 449 cases (116 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · 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 6× “This argument flows from 35 U.S.C. § 141 (c), which provides, A party to an inter partes review or a post-grant review who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board un- der section 318(a) or 328(a) (as the case may be) may appeal the…”

Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “A party to an interference dissatisfied with a Board decision may file a direct appeal to this court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141 (2006). 4 Unlike a § 146 action, a direct appeal under § 141 is based solely on the agency record and reviewed under the standard established by the…”

In Re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “Similarly, the bar to interlocutory review is supported by 35 U.S.C. § 141 (c), which “author- izes appeal only by ‘a party to an inter partes re- view .”

Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 1295 (a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141 (c). II. THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARISE With its enactment of the AIA in 2011, Congress cre- ated IPRs to provide “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”

In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill & James G. Larsen, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “§ 1295 (a)(4)(A) (1988) and 35 U.S.C. § 141 (1988). As discussed below, the legality of the Board panel which issued the reconsideration decision is in question, thus raising the issue of the validity of the decision itself and consequently our authority to review that decision.”

Altaire Pharm., Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., 889 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “35 U.S.C. § 141 (c) (2012) (“A party to .”

Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “However, the court also holds that when no new evidence is provided, the findings and rulings of the PTO receive the same deferential treatment in the district court as would apply if the cause were not a civil action under section 145, but instead were an Administra- tive…”

Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “result comports with 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 (c) and 319, which only authorize appeals from a final written decision.”

Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “to MTD at 16, and Spokeo recognizes that “[t]he violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute an injury in fact,” 7 Appellant’s Reply 16 (emphasis added) (quoting 136 S.”

Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1295 (a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141 (c) to review the Board’s final written decision.”

Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “2014); see also 35 U.S.C. § 141 (c) (“A party to an inter partes review who is dissat- isfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) or 328(a) may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the…”

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999). · cites it 2× “) (granting CCPA review authority over PTO decisions); 35 U. S. C. § 141 (current grant of review authority to the Federal Circuit).”

Show all 449 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.