Source: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partII-chap12.htm
Timestamp: 2016-04-30 02:07:06
Document Index: 207225810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§3', '§204', '§1000', '§4405', '§134', '§7', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§7', '§3', '§7', '§13202', '§13202', '§13106', '§13106', '§13202', '§135', '§1', '§105', '§202', '§1000', '§4507', '§13206', '§3', '§3', '§8', '§701', '§20', '§1000', '§4732', '§1000', '§4732', '§202']

131.Examination of application.
132.Notice of rejection; reexamination.
133.Time for prosecuting application.
134.Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
135.Interferences.
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(5), (n), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 291, 293, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to certain applications for patent and any patents issuing thereon, this analysis is amended by amending item 134 to read “Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” and item 135 to read “Derivation proceedings.” See 2011 Amendment note below.
2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(5), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 291, amended items 134 and 135 generally, substituting “Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” for “Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences” in item 134 and “Derivation proceedings” for “Interferences” in item 135.
1984—Pub. L. 98–622, title II, §204(b)(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3388, substituted “Patent Appeals and Interferences” for “Appeals” in item 134.
2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–29 struck out “of this title” after “41(h)(1)”.
Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4405(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–560, provided that: “The amendments made by section 4403 [amending this section]—
“(1) shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1999], and shall apply to all applications filed under section 111(a) of title 35, United States Code, on or after June 8, 1995, and all applications complying with section 371 of title 35, United States Code, that resulted from international applications filed on or after June 8, 1995; and
§134. Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Pub. L. 112–29, §7(b), (e), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 313, 315, provided that, 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, with certain exceptions, this section is amended:
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(1), (3), (n), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 290, 293, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to certain applications for patent and any patents issuing thereon, this section is amended by:
(1) striking “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences” each place it appears and inserting “Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
(2) amending the section catchline to read as follows: “Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”.
2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(3), amended section catchline generally. Prior to amendment, section catchline read as follows: “Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences”.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(1), substituted “Patent Trial and Appeal Board” for “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–29, §7(b)(1), substituted “a reexamination” for “any reexamination proceeding”.
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(j)(1), substituted “Patent Trial and Appeal Board” for “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–29, §7(b)(2), struck out subsec. (c). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A third-party requester in an inter partes proceeding may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences from the final decision of the primary examiner favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of a patent, having once paid the fee for such appeal.”
2002—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(b)(1), substituted “primary examiner” for “administrative patent judge”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(b)(1), substituted “primary examiner” for “administrative patent judge”.
Pub. L. 107–273, §13106(b), struck out at end “The third-party requester may not appeal the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.”
1999—Pub. L. 106–113 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, having once paid the fee for such appeal.”
1984—Pub. L. 98–622 substituted “Patent Appeals and Interferences” for “Appeals” in section catchline and text.
Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13106(d), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1901, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 141 and 315 of this title] apply with respect to any reexamination proceeding commenced on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 2, 2002].”
Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13202(d), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1902, provided that: “The amendments made by section 4605(b), (c), and (e) of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106–113 [amending this section and sections 141 and 145 of this title], shall apply to any reexamination filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or after the date of enactment of Public Law 106–113 [Nov. 29, 1999].”
§135. Interferences
(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 87–831, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 958; Pub. L. 93–596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 98–622, title I, §105, title II, §202, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3385, 3386; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4507(11), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–566, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, §§3(i), 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 289, 335.)
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(i), (n), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 289, 293, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to certain applications for patent and any patents issuing thereon, this section is amended to read as follows:
(a) Institution of Proceeding.—An applicant for patent may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1-year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding. The determination by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable.
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is section 10 of act June 11, 1946, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 243, which was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 632, and reenacted by the first section thereof as chapter 7 (§701 et seq.) of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 112–29, §20(j), struck out “of this title” after “122(b)”.
1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” wherever appearing.
Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” wherever appearing.
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–622, §202, amended subsec. (a) generally, substituting “, an interference may be declared and the Commissioner shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be” for “he shall give notice thereof to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be” and substituting provisions vesting jurisdiction for determining questions of interference in the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for provisions vesting such jurisdiction in a board of patent interferences.