35 U.S.C. § 2
TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFICATES.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “8 If Chevron deference applies then judicial review 7 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2)’s broad grant of authority to the Office to establish regulations to “govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office” does not eliminate the re- quirement that the PTO, like other agencies, must comply…”
Cooper Tech. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Under 35 U.S.C. § 2 , the Patent Office has authority to establish regulations to “govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.”
Michael I. Kroll v. Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Chief Couns. for the New York State Grievance Comm. for the Tenth Jud. Dist., 242 F.3d 1359 (10th Cir. 2001). “Kroll asserts that 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C. § 32 , which grant the PTO the authority to regulate the practice of patent law before the PTO, preempt the authority of the Grievance Committee to discipline him for conduct arising out of his patent prosecution practice.”
Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “istrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the reviewing court shall set aside agency action if it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity," "in excess of…”
Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “See 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2) (PTO “may establish regulations, not incon- sistent with law”).”
In Re: Queen's Univ. at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2)(D). Pursuant to these powers, the Office has determined that “[a]ny citizen of the United States who is not an attorney, and who fulfills the requirements of this part may be registered as a patent agent to prac- tice before the Office.”
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). “8, Congress has charged the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) with the task of examining patent applications, 35 U. S. C. §2 (a)(1), and issuing patents if “it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law,” §131.”
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). “” 35 U. S. C. §2 (a)(1). When an inventor applies for a patent, an examiner re- views the proposed claims and the prior art to determine if the claims meet the statutory requirements.”
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “" 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b). When Rule 56 was first promulgated in 1949, the portion of the rule that addressed inequitable conduct provided that "any application fraudulently filed or in connection with which any fraud is practiced or attempted on the Patent Office, may be stricken.”
Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Background The PTO has statutory authority to regulate attorney practice before it pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2)(D) (2000), which provides: the [PTO] may establish regulations, not inconsistent with law, which .”
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien Lp, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Here, Congress gave the Director broad rulemaking power to “govern the conduct of the proceedings in the Office,” 35 U.S.C. § 2 (b)(2), and to “establish[] and govern[] inter partes review under this chapter,” 35 U.”
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014). “297 , 328, 335, notes following 35 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 111, 119. Here, the application for the patent-in-suit was filed in 1992, and the relevant court proceedings were initiated in 2010.”
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.