35 U.S.C. § 313
Preliminary response to petition
If an inter partes review petition is filed under section 311, the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that sets forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 35 U.S.C. § 313 (2010). Synopsys argues that because the AIA does not specifically mention “resolution of the question,” institu- tion under the AIA must be broader in scope.”
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Lsi Corp., 926 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “105 , and the patent owner may, but need not, file a preliminary response, *1336 35 U.S.C. § 313 ; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (a).”
Universal Elec., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2013). “35 U.S.C. § 313 ; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (b).”
Pride Mobility Prods. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., 818 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In its preliminary responses under 35 U.S.C. § 313 , Pride Mobility argued that Permobil had failed to show a motivation to make the asserted combinations of references.”
Belkin Int'l, Inc. v. Kappos, 696 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “” 35 U.S.C. § 313 . The question to be resolved is the substantial new question of patentability determined by the Director.”
Callaway Golf Co. v. Kappos, 802 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2011). “35 U.S.C. § 313 . After the PTO initiates an inter partes reexamination, the patent owner may submit pleadings that support the patent’s validity.”
Sas Inst., Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC., 842 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “35 U.S.C. § 313 Preliminary response to petition The patent owner is authorized to respond, and to argue that “no inter partes review should be instituted.”
01 Communique Lab'y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 151 F. Supp. 3d 778 (N.D. Ohio 2015). “The "order under section 313” referred to in § 315(c) is the order issued pursuant to , 35 U.S.C. § 313 granting request for inter partes reexamination.”
Automated Merchandising Sys., Inc. v. Rea, 45 F. Supp. 3d 526 (E.D. Va. 2014). “See 35 U.S.C. § 313 (the USPTO has an obligation to review patents if it determines there are substantial new questions of patentability); see also Callaway Golf Co.”
ACCO Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2008). “A third party whose request for an inter partes reexamination results in an order under 35 U.S.C. § 313 is estopped from asserting at a later time the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable, so long as the third party raised or could have raised…”
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wis. 2014). “35 U.S.C. § 313 ; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (patentee may but is not required to file preliminary response to petition and can expedite the proceeding by electing to waive preliminary response).”
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 983 F. Supp. 2d 713 (E.D. Va. 2014). “LEXIS 5186 , at *6 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 313 ; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (b)).”
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.