The clerk of any United States court for the district wherein testimony is to be taken for use in any contested case in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall, upon the application of any party thereto, issue a subpoena for any witness residing or being within such district, commanding him to appear and testify before an officer in such district authorized to take depositions and affidavits, at the time and place stated in the subpoena. The provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to the attendance of witnesses and to the production of documents and things shall apply to contested cases in the Patent and Trademark Office.
Every witness subpoenaed and in attendance shall be allowed the fees and traveling expenses allowed to witnesses attending the United States district courts.
A judge of a court whose clerk issued a subpoena may enforce obedience to the process or punish disobedience as in other like cases, on proof that a witness, served with such subpoena, neglected or refused to appear or to testify. No witness shall be deemed guilty of contempt for disobeying such subpoena unless his fees and traveling expenses in going to, and returning from, and one day’s attendance at the place of examination, are paid or tendered him at the time of the service of the subpoena; nor for refusing to disclose any secret matter except upon appropriate order of the court which issued the subpoena.
Notes of Decisions
Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enter. Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 85× “123 (2006), the district court issued a subpoena under 35 U.S.C.A. § 24 directing Rosenruist to produce a designee to testify on behalf of the corporation at a deposition in Virginia.”
Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “Cordis Corporation appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting Abbott Laboratories’ motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24 . We conclude that section 24 only empowers a district…”
El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Co., Inc., 825 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “For the federal statute that authorizes parties to TTAB proceedings to invoke federal discovery processes, 35 U.S.C. § 24 , was written long before the 1991 amendments to Rule 45.”
Frilette v. Kimberlin, 508 F.2d 205 (3rd Cir. 1974).
· cites it 31× “§ 24 (1952)^ It is our conclusion that the statute does not grant broad discovery authorization to the district courts in patent interference cases but limits ancillary jurisdiction to the issuance of subpoenasi as permitted by prior practice.”
Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Buildxact Software Ltd., 95 F.4th 810 (4th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 6× “35 U.S.C. § 24 . Xactware appeals. We hold that a district court lacks authority to subpoena evidence that, under PTO rules, is inadmissible in internal PTO proceedings.”
Gladrow v. Weisz, 354 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1965).
· cites it 5× “Weisz relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 24 : “§ 24. Subpoenas, witnesses “The clerk of any United States court for the district wherein testimony is to be taken for use in any contested case in the Patent Office, shall, upon the application of any party thereto, issue a subpoena for any…”
Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., 939 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2019).
“Because Section 7 of the FAA contains a general reference to Rule 45 by requiring subpoenas to be “served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court,” it incorporates subsequent changes to Rule 45, including the 2013 amendment permitting nationwide…”
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 388 (subpoenas for depositions in connection with proceedings in the House of Representatives); 35 U.S.C. § 24 (subpoenas for evidence to be used in connection with proceedings in Patent and Trademark Office); 45 U.”
In re Johnson & Johnson, 59 F.R.D. 174 (D. Del. 1973).
· cites it 4× “, and 35 U.S.C. § 24 to quash the subpoenas. *177 The respondents’ main contentions in opposition to the petition for contempt and in support of their motion to quash are: (1) that the subpoenas were directed to the individuals, not Jordan-Delaware, so that Rule 45(c), requiring…”
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.