U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART I— UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Chapter CHAPTER 2— PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

35 U.S.C. § 23

Testimony in Patent and Trademark Office cases

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

The Director may establish rules for taking affidavits and depositions required in cases in the Patent and Trademark Office. Any officer authorized by law to take depositions to be used in the courts of the United States, or of the State where he resides, may take such affidavits and depositions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: Abbott Laboratories v. Cordis Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abbott Laboratories v. Cordis Corporation (2013) Fed. Cir. · cites it 3× “” 35 U.S.C. § 23 . 5 Sections 23 and 24 originated as a single sentence in section 1 of the Patent Act of 1861, which provided: That the Commissioner of Patents may establish rules for taking .”
Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd. (2007) 4th Cir. · cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C.A. § 23 (West 2001) (granting the Director of the PTO the authority to "establish rules for taking affidavits and depositions required in cases in the [PTO]").”
El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Company, Inc. (2016) 10th Cir. “Having exhausted two possible readings of the statute we must admit still a third can be found in currency today.”
Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Buildxact Software Limited (2024) 4th Cir. · cites it 3× “35 U.S.C. § 23 . The PTO has promulgated rules about securing deposition testimony in opposition proceedings.”
Pic Inc. v. Prescon Corp. (1980) D. Del. “See 35 U.S.C. §§ 23 , 24; 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.201-1.”
Melancon v. McKeithen (1972) E.D. La. “35 U.S.C. § 23 . . 49 U.S.C. § 17 . . 28 U.”
Giulio Natta, (Appellees in No. 16003) v. Alex Zletz and Standard Oil Company of Indiana, (Appellants in No. 16003) (1967) 7th Cir. “Giulio Natta, Piero Pino and Giorgio Mazzanti, senior party in a patent interference proceeding (Interference 89,634) pending before the United States Patent Office moved in the District Court pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A. § 23 and § 24 for an order under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules…”
Frilette v. Kimberlin (1974) 3rd Cir. · cites it 4× “Spurred, no doubt, by the effects of the Natta decision, the Patent Office in 1971 chose to exercise the power to promulgate its own rules of discovery under the authority granted by Congress in 35 U.S.C. § 23 (1952). The Patent Office discovery rules, being limited in time and…”
John C. Sheehan v. Frank P. Doyle (1975) 1st Cir. “ht suppose that the scope of discovery for use in an interference 1 would be determined by the Patent Office or at least coordinated with the administrative proceeding within its jurisdiction; and Congress has in fact conferred statutory authority upon the Commissioner of…”
David W. Piel, Deceased, by Tillie Margaret Piel v. Eugene H. Falkner (1970) C.C.P.A. “Congress, by 35 U.S.C. § 23 , gave the Commissioner authority to establish Patent Office Rule 273.”
Hogan v. Zletz (1970) D. Del. “35 U.S.C. § 23 . The rules clearly provide means of making and preserving objections to testimony taken by deposition, and contemplate determinations of admissibility by the Patent Office only when all testimony has been taken.”
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (2024) Fed. Cir. “at 14 (citing 35 U.S.C. §§ 23 , 25; 28 U.S.C. § 1746 ; 37 C.”
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.