U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART I— UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Chapter CHAPTER 3— PRACTICE BEFORE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

35 U.S.C. § 31

Repealed. Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4715(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–580]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 332 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2023 · leading case: In Re: Queen's Univ. at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: Queen's Univ. at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “Congress has provided that the Commissioner of Patents ‘may prescribe regulations governing the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing appli- cants or other parties before the Patent Office,’ 35 U.S.C. § 31 , and the Commissioner, pursuant to…”
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948). · cites it 6× “84, 90, 91 , and cases cited; 35 U.S.C. § 31 , R.S. § 4886. The application of this newly-discovered natural principle to the problem of packaging of inoculants may well have been an important commercial advance.”
Goodwin v. Borg-Warner Corp., 157 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1946). · cites it 6× “All of the appellees' experts at the interference proceedings gave testimony supporting the general proposition that the integral cushion type was sharply differentiated from and much less successful than the Borglite or Daukus type.”
Cuno Eng'g Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1942). · cites it 2× “Under the statute ( 35 U.S.C. § 31 ; R.S. § 4886) the device must not only be "new and useful," it must also be an "invention" or "discovery.”
Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). · cites it 2× “Congress has provided that the Commissioner of Patents “may prescribe regulations governing the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys,' or other persons representing applicants or other parties before the Patent Office,” 35 U. S. C. § 31 , 3 and the Commissioner, pursuant…”
Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., 326 U.S. 249 (1945). · cites it 2× “Revised Statutes, §§ 4886, 4884 as amended, 35 U.S.C. §§ 31 , 40, provide for the grant of a patent for a term of seventeen years to any person who has invented a "new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948). · cites it 2× “1212 , 35 U.S.C. § 31 . "Every patent shall contain a short title or description of the invention or discovery, correctly indicating its nature and design, and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use,…”
Richard M. Franchi v. Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., Assistant Sec'y of Com. & Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 972 F.2d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “he plaintiffs said examination answer ab initio in accordance with the Court’s findings and the Laws of the United States and The Federal Regulations Franchi additionally sought to have the court “order the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to allow the Plaintiff to show he…”
Gen. Talking Pictures Corp. v. W. Elec. Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938). · cites it 2× “§ 4886 ( 35 U.S.C. § 31 ). Crown Cork & Seal Co. v.”
Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Ip Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “2d 668 , 669 (CCPA 1931) ("The mere arrangement of printed matter on a sheet or sheets of paper, in book form or otherwise, does not constitute 'any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' or 'any new and useful *1039 improvements thereof,' as…”
Edmund M. Jaskiewicz v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Comm'r, Patents & Trademarks, 802 F.2d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “35 U.S.C. § 31 (1982). Persons who seek to become practitioners must “show that they are of good moral character and reputation and are possessed of the necessary [legal, scientific, and technical] qualifications to render to applicants or other persons valuable service, advice,…”
Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Job Reynolds Larry Holliday, & Holiday Steel Rule Die Corp., 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990). “8, 35 U.S.C. § 31 . But the public policy which includes inventions within the granted monopoly excludes from it all that is not embraced in the invention.”
Show all 332 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.