35 U.S.C. § 142
Notice of appeal
When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellant shall file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written notice of appeal directed to the Director, within such time after the date of the decision from which the appeal is taken as the Director prescribes, but in no case less than 60 days after that date.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Application of Lepage's Inc. (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corp., & Assignee of Johnson & Johnson), 312 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1963).
Application of Lepage's Inc. (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corp., & Assignee of Johnson & Johnson), 312 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1963). “It is our opinion that 35 U.S.C. § 142 , in stating: “* * * the appellant * * * shall file * * * his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in writing * * [Emphasis ours.”
Application of Arthur L. Reese, 359 F.2d 462 (C.C.P.A. 1966). “The time for appealing to this court is governed by Patent Office Rule 304, promulgated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 142 , and appellant makes no contention that he has complied with that rule.”
In Re Ipr Licensing, Inc., 942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “See also 35 U.S.C. § 142 (same). The cross-appeal deadline is instead rooted in the Federal Rules of Appellate Proce- dure.”
Pers. Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., 946 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “35 U.S.C. § 142 (“When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellant shall file .”
In Re Michael Ben Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Rule 304(a)(1) finds its statutory authority at 35 U.S.C. § 142 , which provides as follows: When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellant shall file in the Patent and Trademark Office a…”
Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell & Paul Timmerbeil, 320 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1963). “…specificity the statute requires. The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed. . Serial No. 384,666, filed October 7, 1953. . 35 U.S.C. § 142 .”
Palomar Techs., Inc. v. Mrsi Sys., LLC, 373 F. Supp. 3d 322 (D.D.C. 2019). “35 U.S.C. §§ 142 , 319 ; 37 C.F.R. § 90.3 ; Fed.”
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “11 3 Axonics timely appealed from both final written deci- sions on February 4, 2022, within the 63 days allowed by 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.3 (a)(1).”
Application of Edwin H. Land & Howard G. Rogers, 368 F.2d 866 (C.C.P.A. 1966). “35 U.S.C. § 142 . We deem claim 56 to stand allowed.”
United States v. Charles Weiss, 52 F.4th 546 (3rd Cir. 2022). “§ 2645 (c) (1994) (stating that review of decisions of the Court of International Trade is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of that court); 35 U.S.C. § 142 (1994) (stating that patent appeals from Patent and Trademark Office decisions are taken by filing a…”
Application of Frederick C. Foster, 343 F.2d 980 (C.C.P.A. 1965). “Under such circumstances, what issue may then be assigned as error for appeal to this court under 35 U.S.C. § 142 and be relied on by us for decision under 35 U.”
Roy E. Ferree v. Harry D. Shephard, Jr. & Pearl Thelma Griffiths, Adm'x of the Est. of Norman J. Griffiths, 384 F.2d 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1967). “Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal turns on the single issue of whether appellant’s reasons of appeal are sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 142 to raise an appealable issue within the limited statutory jurisdiction of this court.”
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.