MPEP § 2307.01 — Ex Parte Communications (Annotated Rules)
§2307.01 Ex Parte Communications
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2307.01, including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Ex Parte Communications
This section addresses Ex Parte Communications. Primary authority: 37 CFR 41.11. Contains: 1 guidance statement, 2 permissions, and 1 other statement.
Key Rules
PTAB Jurisdiction
Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent. Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent or application without Board authorization should be promptly reported to the Board. Board action may include a sanction in the interference or referral of a patent practitioner to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent. Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent or application without Board authorization should be promptly reported to the Board. Board action may include a sanction in the interference or referral of a patent practitioner to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Inter Partes Reexamination Appeal
An ex parte communication about an inter partes reexamination (subpart C of this part) or about a contested case (subparts D and E of this part) with a Board member, or with a Board employee assigned to the proceeding, is not permitted.
Practitioner Discipline
Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent. Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent or application without Board authorization should be promptly reported to the Board. Board action may include a sanction in the interference or referral of a patent practitioner to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2307.01 — Ex Parte Communications
Source: USPTO2307.01 Ex Parte Communications [R-08.2017]
37 CFR 41.11 Ex parte communications in inter partes proceedings.
An ex parte communication about an inter partes reexamination (subpart C of this part) or about a contested case (subparts D and E of this part) with a Board member, or with a Board employee assigned to the proceeding, is not permitted.
Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent. Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent or application without Board authorization should be promptly reported to the Board. Board action may include a sanction in the interference or referral of a patent practitioner to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.