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. § 307

Certificate of patentability, unpatentability, and claim cancellation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In a reexamination proceeding under this chapter, when the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director will issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.(b) Any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent following a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made substantial preparation for the same, prior to issuance of a certificate under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.(Added Pub. L. 96–517, § 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3016; amended Pub. L. 103–465, title V, § 533(b)(8), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4990; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 335.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–29 struck out “of this title” after “252”.

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner”.

1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–465 substituted “used within the United States, or imported into the United States, anything” for “used anything”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 effective on date that is one year after date on which the WTO Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States [Jan. 1, 1995], with provisions relating to earliest filed patent application, see section 534(a), (b)(3) of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 154 of this title.

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 62 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “” 35 U.S.C. § 307 (b). The reissue statute, originally enacted in 1832, codi- fied the Supreme Court’s holding that even in the absence of a statutory provision authorizing reissue, where an innocent mistake had been made in granting a patent, “[a]ll would admit that a new…”
Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 10× “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 307 (b) and 316(b), respectively, both ex parte and inter partes reexaminations can give rise to intervening rights.”
Click-To-Call Tech., Lp v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “” 35 U.S.C. § 307 (a) (emphasis added). Petitioners’ reliance on 35 U.”
Univ. of Virginia Pat. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 755 F. Supp. 2d 738 (W.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 4× “After I found that the meaning of “magnetization recovery period” was changed in reexamination, I proceeded to hold that the change was substantive, and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 307 (b) and 252, that the Patent Foundation was precluded from collecting for infringement of Claim…”
Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 132 (a) (“No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclo- 1 After reexamination, the PTO issues a reexamina- tion certificate that memorializes the results of the reex- amination process. The reexamination certificate identifies the patent and “confirm[s] any claim of…”
Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “12, 1980) reexamination sections of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 307 . Specifically, we must address the question: to what degree can claims be amended in reexamination before they lose their retroactive effect to the original issuance date? Neither this court, nor, apparently,…”
In Re Laughlin Prods., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 525 (E.D. Pa. 2003). · cites it 3× “” 35 U.S.C. § 307 (a). 4 As noted above, this case is unusual because the Plaintiff-patentee is seeking reexamination.”
Insta-Foam Prods., Inc. v. Universal Foam Sys., Inc., 906 F.2d 698 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “In so doing, the court rejected Universal’s defensive claim under 35 U.S.C. § 307 (1988) that it had acquired intervening rights attendant to the reexamination of the ’110 patent.”
Int'l Rectifier Corp., Plaintiff-Cross v. Ixys Corp., 361 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “’699 patent, Reexamination Certificate Issued Under 35 U.S.C. § 307 , B2 4,959,699, col. 1,1.”
Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc., 544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Under 35 U.S.C. § 307 , a claim that is amended in reexamination has the same effect as a claim that is amended in reissue proceedings under 35 U.”
R + L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 801 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 252 (2012) (stating that a reissued patent shall have the same effect as the original patent “in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical ” (emphasis added)); see 35 U.S.C. § 307 (b) (stating that “a reexamination proceeding will…”
Stand. Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “See 35 U.S.C. § 307 (a) (1988). (“In a reexamination proceeding .”
Show all 62 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.