With respect to an appeal described in section 142, the Director shall transmit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a certified list of the documents comprising the record in the Patent and Trademark Office. The court may request that the Director forward the original or certified copies of such documents during pendency of the appeal. In an ex parte case, the Director shall submit to the court in writing the grounds for the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office, addressing all of the issues raised in the appeal. The Director shall have the right to intervene in an appeal from a decision entered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a derivation proceeding under section 135 or in an inter partes or post-grant review under chapter 31 or 32. The court shall, before hearing an appeal, give notice of the time and place of the hearing to the Director and the parties in the appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Knowles Elec. LLC v. Iancu, 886 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Pursu- ant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 (2012), the Director of the USPTO intervened and participated at oral argument.”
In Re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) intervened in the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 . For the following reasons, we reverse.”
In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“The USPTO intervened pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 (2012) and, although it did not file a brief, participated at oral argument.”
In Re: Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Ethicon timely appealed, and the Director of the PTO (the “Director”) intervened pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 , filing a brief and participating in oral argument.”
Pgs Geophysical as v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“In its final written decisions in the IPRs, the Board ruled partly for PGS and partly for WesternGeco on the reviewed claims and grounds. Both PGS and WesternGeco appealed, but WesternGeco then settled with PGS and withdrew, leaving only PGS's appeals as to certain claims of the…”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“See 35 U.S.C. § 143 . But that authority offers no actual reviewability of a decision issued by a panel of APJs.”
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") intervened pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143 . *1349 We have jurisdiction over these appeals pursuant to 28 U.”
Crfd Rsch., Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143 . 2. Anticipation by Phan San Jose A patent is invalid for anticipation under 35 U.”
HP Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Inv.., LLC, 817 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“Accordingly, the Board found that HP had not met its burden of establishing the unpatentability of claim 13.”
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.