35 U.S.C. § 172
Right of priority
The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not apply to designs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: In Re Sung Nam Cho, 813 F.2d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In Re Sung Nam Cho, 813 F.2d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “§ 171 , except for a more limited priority right, 35 U.S.C. § 172 , and patent term, 35 U.S.”
In Re Bradley C. Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “35 U.S.C. § 172 (1988). In In re Talbott, our predecessor court decided, as a matter of first impression, that a design protected by a Gesch- *1036 macksmuster qualifies under section 102(d) as an invention patented in a foreign country for purposes of applying the statutory…”
Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Famous Supply Corp., 55 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “35 U.S.C. § 172 (c) (emphasis added). 10 *787 In this case, summary judgment of non-infringement on Ductmate’s claims for indirect infringement is not appropriate.”
G. B. Lewis Co. v. Gould Prods., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 690 (E.D.N.Y 1968). “But it is plain in this ease that it would be of no use to plaintiff to rely on the second Utility patent for any purpose, and certainly not for the priority advantage of any ornamentality that it presented and that could be considered as patentable over the first Utility patent…”
Application of Yorck Joachim Talbott, 443 F.2d 1397 (C.C.P.A. 1971). “Noting the provision in 35 U.S.C. § 172 that, in the case of designs, the time specified in section 102(d) of the Patent Act shall be six months, the examiner rejected appellant’s claim as being barred from patentability under the provisions of the latter section.”
Nanjing 3H Med. Prods. Co., LTD. v. KT Health, LLC (D. Maryland 2025). “35 U.S.C. § 172 ; (ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 48). Accordingly, KT Health asserts that each challenged design patent claims priority to the ‘355 Application filed on November 25, 2009.”
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.