37 CFR 1.181 - Petition to the Director
| Cite as | 37 CFR 1.181 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
1361 practice notes
-
Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees
...sufficient grounds for appeal, or basis of complaint before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It is rather reviewable by petition under 37 CFR 1.181. Additionally, the applicant has the option to request an interview with the examiner, consistent with MPEP 713, and to request a review of i......
-
Examination Guidelines for Implementing the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
...3(a) and the Good Guidance Bulletin the examination guidelines are binding on Office employees and should be reviewable by petition under 37 CFR 1.181. Response: As discussed previously, these examination guidelines do not constitute substantive rulemaking and do not have the force and effe......
-
Christy, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-657C
...may, "to the extent appropriate," be addressed "in decisions on petition."18 MPEP § 607.02 (9th ed. Rev. 3, Jan. 2018); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181-.182 (discussing petitions); Petitions, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions (last visited Jan. 29, 2019) [http:/......
-
Target Training Int'l, Ltd. v. Lee, No. C 13–3057–MWB.
...the IPReex statute was in force. Consequently, on November 14, 2012, TTI filed its first petition (a “Rule 181 Petition,” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181) requesting that the PTO change the filing date of EDNA's IPReex Request from September 14, 2012, back to September 16, 2012. On November 2......
Request a trial to view additional results
1325 cases
-
Christy, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-657C
...may, "to the extent appropriate," be addressed "in decisions on petition."18 MPEP § 607.02 (9th ed. Rev. 3, Jan. 2018); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181-.182 (discussing petitions); Petitions, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions (last visited Jan. 29, 2019) [http:/......
-
Target Training Int'l, Ltd. v. Lee, No. C 13–3057–MWB.
...the IPReex statute was in force. Consequently, on November 14, 2012, TTI filed its first petition (a “Rule 181 Petition,” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.181) requesting that the PTO change the filing date of EDNA's IPReex Request from September 14, 2012, back to September 16, 2012. On November 2......
-
Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company, Inc., Civ. No. 49392.
...judgment, Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company, 327 F.Supp. 206, 207 (N.D.Cal.1971). 44 35 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., and see current 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181 et seq., §§ 1.191 et seq., and §§ 1.301 et seq. Koratron's patent office expert Whitmore testified that several administrative avenues existed......
-
EI Du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum, Civ. A. No. 81-508-JLL.
...two days earlier the Patent Office had dismissed Phillips' petition to resume the reexamination-reissue proceedings as untimely under 37 C.F.R. 1.181(f). The Assistant Commissioner had opined that "in failing to timely petition the decision to vacate, Phillips acquiesced in the director's d......
Request a trial to view additional results
23 firm's commentaries
-
MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 10, Issue 1 - Winter 2012
...statement and accelerated examination support document; and (vii) file an IDS.19 Petition Dismissal Applicant can file a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 if applicant believes that a decision dismissing the request for prioritized examination is not proper. Applicant should review the reason(s) ......
-
Now What? Strategies for Responding to Final Office Actions
...based”). 12. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d at 1345. 13. In re Leithem, 661 F.3d at 1320. 14. M.P.E.P. 706.07(a). 15. Id. 16. Id. 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(1); see also M.P.E.P. 706.07(c). 18. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(f). 19. M.P.E.P. 706.07(d). 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. 21. M.P.E.P. 714.13 (“The ......
-
PTO Revival Rulings Are Not Subject To Third-Party Collateral Challenge
...PTO for infringement of the '218 patent under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Exela then filed the subject petition in the PTO, under the APA and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181, 1.182, and 1.183, challenging the PTO's revival of the patent application. The PTO declined to consider Exela's petition, finding that ......
-
PTAB Denies Sigma-Aldrich’s Petition for Patent Interference on CRISPR-Cas9
...for PTAB to declare an interference. It also appeared to request supervisory review of the Examiner’s non-final Office action under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, which falls under the jurisdiction of Technology Center 1600. The application further requested that the Director of the USPTO waive or susp......
Request a trial to view additional results