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. § 145

Civil action to obtain patent

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

An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an appeal under section 134(a) may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have remedy by civil action against the Director in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints. The court may adjudge that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as the facts in the case may appear and such adjudication shall authorize the Director to issue such patent on compliance with the requirements of law. All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 471 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 19× “” 35 U.S.C. § 145 . This case presents the issue of what limitations exist on an applicant’s right to introduce new evidence in a § 145 civil action.”
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “§ 554 (a)(1), and (b) disappointed patent applicants may obtain such a trial under 35 U.S.C. § 145 . See Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.”
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 719 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 145 , new evidence may be considered and that “it makes little sense for the district court to apply a deferential standard of review to PTO factual findings that are contradicted by the new evidence.”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 14× “The Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed the examiner’s rejection and Nantkwest, as assignee of the application, appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145 . We have provided a summary of the technology and the proceed- ings at the USPTO and district court…”
Leo J. Fregeau v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, 776 F.2d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · cites it 10× “§ 101 (inoperativeness — lack of utility), § 112 (inadequate disclosure of “how to use”), and § 103 (obviousness).”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “35 U.S.C. § 145 . We, in turn, have jurisdiction over subsequent appeals from the district court under 28 U.”
Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 14× “The § 145 Action On April 16, 2003, Hyatt, now acting through counsel, filed a district court action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 against the Director. The Director filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing principally that the Board's decision to reject all of the relevant claims…”
Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “This statutory mandate becomes clear from a comparison of § 21(b), containing the “issues in the proceeding” language, with the analogous provision in the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 145 , which lacks that phrase.”
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 365 (2019). · cites it 2× “35 U.S.C. § 145 . The statute specifies that "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”
Nankwest, Inc. v. Lee, 162 F. Supp. 3d 540 (E.D. Va. 2016). · cites it 8× “78) at the conclusion of a trademark and infringement case, where the Plaintiff elected to bring its appeal of the PTAB’s decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 . The first issue is whether 35 U.”
Hyatt v. Iancu, 332 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “Hyatt brought these actions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain patents on four of his patent applications following decisions in the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, now known as the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (the "Board").”
Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Donald W. Banner, Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “This appeal is from an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a civil action brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 against Donald W. Banner as Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks 1 authorizing the Commissioner to issue to appellee a patent…”
Show all 471 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.