U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART III— PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS › Chapter CHAPTER 30— PRIOR ART CITATIONS TO OFFICE AND EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF PATENTS

35 U.S.C. § 301

Citation of prior art and written statements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing—(1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent; or(2) statements of the patent owner filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent.(b)Official File.—If the person citing prior art or written statements pursuant to subsection (a) explains in writing the pertinence and manner of applying the prior art or written statements to at least 1 claim of the patent, the citation of the prior art or written statements and the explanation thereof shall become a part of the official file of the patent.(c)Additional Information.—A party that submits a written statement pursuant to subsection (a)(2) shall include any other documents, pleadings, or evidence from the proceeding in which the statement was filed that addresses the written statement.(d)Limitations.—A written statement submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(2), and additional information submitted pursuant to subsection (c), shall not be considered by the Office for any purpose other than to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324. If any such written statement or additional information is subject to an applicable protective order, such statement or information shall be redacted to exclude information that is subject to that order.(e)Confidentiality.—Upon the written request of the person citing prior art or written statements pursuant to subsection (a), that person’s identity shall be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.(Added Pub. L. 96–517, § 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3015; amended Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(g)(1), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 311.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Pub. L. 112–29 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(g)(3), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 312, provided that: “The amendments made by this subsection [amending this section] shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 16, 2011] and shall apply to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective date.”

Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1981, and applicable to patents in force as of July 1, 1981, or issued thereafter, see section 8(b) of Pub. L. 96–517, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 41 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016). · cites it 2× “” Act to Amend the Patent and Trademark Laws, 35 U. S. C. §301 et seq. That statute (which remains in effect) gives “[a]ny person at any time” the right to “file a request for reexamination” on the basis of certain prior art “bearing on the patentability” of an already-issued…”
Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “, 35 U.S.C. §§ 301 , 303, 304, 306, 307 (ex parte reexamination); id.”
In Re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “The America Invents Act refers to the “proper mean- ing of a patent claim,” see 35 U.S.C. § 301 (d) (referring to “the proper meaning of a patent claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324”).”
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). “See Act To Amend the Patent and Trademark Laws, 35 U. S. C. §301 et seq. Ex parte re- examination permits “[a]ny person at any time” to “file a request for reexamination.”
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 966 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “(citing 35 U.S.C. §§ 301 , 302), we cabined the scope of these limitations to the patent’s “original claims,” stating that “other challenges to the patentability of original claims— such as qualification as patentable subject matter under § 101 .”
Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). “If the Patent Office concludes that the prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability," the agency may reexamine the patent and, if warranted, cancel the patent or some of its claims. §§ 303(a), 304-307.”
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “3015 (1980) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307). Like reissuance, ex parte reexamination is a curative proceed- ing meant to correct or eliminate erroneously granted patents.”
Molins Plc, & John Coventry Smith, Jr. v. Textron, Inc., Kearney & Trecker Corp., & Avco Corp., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “" 35 U.S.C. § 301 (1988) [Emphasis added.] .”
In Re Ntp, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “NTP asserts that the PTO could not consider whether the '592 patent was entitled to an earlier priority date because (1) 35 U.S.C. § 301 generally prohibits such an analysis; and (2) 35 U.”
Heinl v. Godici, 143 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Va. 2001). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs final challenge to the order granting the ’809 Reexamination is that the request for the second reexamination was improper because it contained affidavits and declarations, which plaintiff contends are not permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 301 . Plaintiff argues that…”
Moleculon Rsch. Corp. v. Cbs, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 5 one day before Moleculon filed the present suit, the Citation identified the Gustafson patent and distinguished it from the claimed invention.”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “8 Compare 35 U.S.C. §§ 301 , 302 (“Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art [consist- ing of patents or printed publications bearing on the pa- tentability of that claim].”
Show all 59 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.