35 U.S.C. § 306
Appeal
The patent owner involved in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter may appeal under the provisions of section 134, and may seek court review under the provisions of sections 141 to 144, with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · 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). “§ 145 until the AIA amended 35 U.S.C. § 306 . IPRs are not subject to 35 U.”
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “§ 307 (a) (emphasis added); see also 35 U.S.C. § 306 (providing patentees with appeal rights from any PTO reexamination “decision adverse to the patentability” of one or more claims).”
Teles Ag v. Kappos, 846 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2012). “The plaintiffs are patent owners, TELES AG and Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (collectively, “Teles”), who brought suit under section 306 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 306 , against David J. Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and…”
Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2002). “35 U.S.C. § 306 . Notwithstanding the presentation of new evidence and contrary to the plaintiffs’ beliefs, the PTO’s decision will not be reviewed de novo.”
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Kappos, 6 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2013). “Once the patent examiner delivers a final decision, 35 U.S.C. § 306 governs the rights of patent owners to appeal.”
Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “3 Congress was also within its constitutional powers when it created a reexamination procedure as an additional mechanism for the review of patents.”
In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien, 747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “35 U.S.C. § 306 (2000) (emphasis added). Teles argues that the reference in § 306 to “the provisions of section 141 to 145” shows that § 145 continues to be available to patent owners.”
In Re Jerre M. Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “35 U.S.C. §§ 306 , 134. D. The Board Decision The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-21 under 35 U.”
In Re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “”); see also 35 U.S.C. § 306 (“The patent owner involved in a reexamination proceeding .”
alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, 26 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “§ 2401 (a), in which to bring an APA action in any district court to challenge an estoppel-based decision against initi- ation, whereas patent owners must adhere to the strictures of 35 U.S.C. §§ 306 , 134(b), and 141(b) and 37 C.”
In Re Lawrence B. Lockwood, 50 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “35 U.S.C. § 306 . The Patlex panel noted that although validity is normally raised in litigation between two parties, “the threshold question usually is whether the PTO, under the authority assigned to it by Congress, properly granted the patent.”
Patlex Corp., Inc. v. Mossinghoff, 585 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Pa. 1983). “35 U.S.C. § 306 . After exhausting these administrative procedures, judicial review of adverse decisions by the PTO Board of Appeals is available (1) on the administrative record in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or (2) by trial de novo in the United…”
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.