35 U.S.C. § 302
Request for reexamination
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 cited under the provisions of section 301. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Director pursuant to the provisions of section 41. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Director promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016).
Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016). “The proceeding involves what used to be called a reexamination (and, as noted above, a cousin of inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, 35 U. S. C. §302 et seq., still bears that name).”
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “" 35 U.S.C. § 302 . The PTO determines whether the request raises "a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent.”
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “35 U.S.C. § 302 (1980). If the request raised “a substantial new question of patentabil- ity” based on prior art, the USPTO would grant the re- quest and conduct reexamination.”
Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “a cousin of inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, 35 U.S.C. § 302 el seq., still bears that name).”
Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). “See 35 U.S.C. §§ 302 , 303. By contrast, the AIA post-issuance review proceedings are adversarial, adjudicatory proceedings between the "person" who petitioned for review and the patent owner: There is briefing, a hearing, discovery, and the presentation of evidence, and the…”
The Boeing Co. v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, & Cegedur Societe De Transformation De L'ALuminum Pechiney, 853 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “Recognizing that Cegedur was the initiator of the ’383 reexamination proceeding, paid the filing fee and prepared the request for reexamination, we nevertheless conclude that it lacks standing to bring this appeal.”
In Re David C. Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “See 35 U.S.C. § 302 (1988). The requests were consolidated into a single proceeding for the reexamination of claims 1 through 34.”
At & T Intellectual Prop. I v. Tivo, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “” 35 U.S.C. § 302 . A district court has the discretion to stay judicial proceedings pending reexamination of a patent.”
In Re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “35 U.S.C. § 302 . Congress intended reexaminations to provide an important “quality check” on patents that would allow the government to remove defective and erroneously granted patents.”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 529 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 2007). “Late in the discovery process, Lilly petitioned the PTO to reexamine the '516 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 , 11 arguing that a large number of the patent’s claims “encompassed numerous prior art methods employing compounds now known to necessarily modulate NF-kB activity.”
Syntex (u.s.a.) Inc. v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “90/001,017 (’017 Reexamination) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 (1982), 1 citing three principal references.”
In re Cipro Cases I & II, 348 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2015). “) 8 After the settlement, Bayer submitted the ’444 patent to the Patent and Trademark Office for reexamination and obtained reaffirmation that it was not invalid.”
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.