What is a priority showing in patent interference proceedings?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. A priority showing is a requirement under 37 CFR 41.202(d)(1) when an applicant’s earliest constructive reduction to practice is later than that of a patent or published application claiming interfering subject matter. The MPEP states: “Whenever the application has an earliest constructive reduction-to-practice that is later than the earliest constructive reduction-to-practice of a published application having allowed claims or a patent with which it interferes, the applicant must make a priority showing under 37 CFR 41.202(d)(1).” This showing is necessary to demonstrate why the applicant would prevail on priority in an interference proceeding. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Constructive Reduction to Practice Must Be Shown for Interfering Application L MPEP 2305 Priority Showing Requirement for Interference Proceedings MPEP 2305 Required Priority Showing Required for Later Reduction-to-Practice MPEP 2305 Required Requirement for Priority Showing in Interfering Application L MPEP 2305 Required Requirement for Priority Showing in Interference MPEP 2305 Permitted Priority Showing Instead of Affidavit for Interference Claims MPEP 2305 Required Requirement for Priority Showing When Claims Interfere MPEP 2305 Priority Showing Must Prove Priority MPEP 2305 Required Priority Showing Must Be Adequately Presented MPEP 2305 Showing of Priority Must Be Filed for Later Reduction-to-Practice MPEP 2305 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What are the consequences of an inadequate priority showing? How does a priority showing differ from a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit? How does a priority showing differ from a priority statement in interference proceedings? ...