35 U.S.C. § 319
Appeal
A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) may appeal the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. Any party to the inter partes review shall have the right to be a party to the appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · 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. § 319 ; Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “, the petitioners in the IPR proceeding, moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 319 (providing for appeal from a “final written decision”) created the exclu- sive means of appeal and that the Board did not issue a “final…”
In Re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “at 1375 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 319 ) (alter- ation in original).”
Mylan Labs. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., 989 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “3 Mylan argues the Supreme Court has undermined St. Jude, but that is not so.”
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien Lp, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 35 U.S.C. § 319 ; see also Versata Dev. Grp.”
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021). “35 U. S. C. §319 . At this stage, the Director can intervene before the court to defend or disavow the Board’s decision.”
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). “And because the Patent Act provides for judicial review by the Federal Circuit, see 35 U. S. C. §319 , we need not consider whether inter partes review would be constitutional “without any sort of intervention by a court at any stage of the proceedings,” Atlas Roofing Co.”
Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “at 2139–40 (citing both 35 U.S.C. § 319 and 35 U.S.C. § 312 (2006) (repealed) (highlighting the nonreviewability 3 The Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo II after briefing and oral argument concluded in this case.”
Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 915 F.3d 764 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Momenta filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 319 : 35 U.S.C. § 319 . Appeal A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) may appeal the decision pursuant to sections 141 [appeal to…”
Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Both appeals are authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 319 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The appeal is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 319 . This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC., 818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Dell appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 319 , challenging the Board’s confirmation of claims 14-17 and 34-36.”
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.