U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART II— PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS › Chapter CHAPTER 13— REVIEW OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE DECISIONS

35 U.S.C. § 144

Decision on appeal

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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall review the decision from which an appeal is taken on the record before the Patent and Trademark Office. Upon its determination the court shall issue to the Director its mandate and opinion, which shall be entered of record in the Patent and Trademark Office and shall govern the further proceedings in the case.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2021 · leading case: Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962) scotus · cites it 8× “" 35 U. S. C. § 144 . The codification "omitted as superfluous" the last sentence in the existing statute: "But no opinion or decision of the court in any such case shall preclude any person interested from the right to contest the validity of such patent in any court wherein…”
In Re Aoyama (2011) cafc · cites it 4× “3d at 981-82 ; see also 35 U.S.C. § 144 (stating that this court's mandate shall govern further proceedings before the Office).”
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019) scotus “2d 704 (2012) ; 35 U.S.C. § 144 . The second pathway allows applicants to file a new civil action against the Director of the PTO in federal district court.”
Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu (2018) cafc · cites it 2× “” 35 U.S.C. § 144 ; see Fla. Power & Light Co.”
Hyatt v. Kappos (2010) cafc · cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C. § 144 . Pursuant to the plain language of § 145, this civil action does not merely afford judicial review of agency action.”
In Re Robert J. Gartside and Richard C. Norton (2000) cafc “Section 144 explicitly provides that we must review Board decisions “on the record” developed by the PTO, see 35 U.S.C. § 144 .(1994) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall review the decision from, which an appeal is taken on the record before the…”
Jerry Gechter, Robert L. Pokress, Jeffrey A. Fried, and G. Wayne Andrews v. Wayne A. Davidson and Diana S. Winter (1997) cafc · cites it 2× “35 U.S.C. § 144 (1994) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall review the decision from which an appeal is taken on the record before the Patent and Trademark Office.”
Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cf Crespe LLC (2018) cafc “§ 1295 (a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 144 , 319. Two other IPRs had been instituted concerning the ’585 patent.”
In Re Comiskey (2009) cafc “” Appellant’s Supp. Br. 19. Comiskey now asserts that “[t]his Court lacks the power to sua sponte raise and thereafter decide a statutory ground of patentability never raised during the agency proceeding below” because our review *974 of the Board’s decision is required to be…”
Robert D. Brand, Capital MacHine Co., Inc., and Indiana Forge, LLC v. Thomas A. Miller, Darrel C. Pinkston, and Miller V (2007) cafc · cites it 2× “We then noted that 35 U.S.C. § 144 directs us to review “on the record” the decisions of the Board.”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu (2018) cafc “35 U.S.C. § 144 . Section 145, by contrast, authorizes a more expansive challenge to the Board's decision and is generally more time consuming.”
In Re Anita Dembiczak and Benson Zinbarg (1999) cafc “Because the Board has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 , 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.”
Show all 74 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.