35 U.S.C. § 321 — (note) (MPEP Coverage Index) – BlueIron IP
35 U.S.C. § 321 (note)
Source: Patent Statute (35 U.S.C.)BlueIron Update:
This page consolidates MPEP guidance interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 321, including 1 rules 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.
Summary
This section outlines the limitations on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's authority after a patent has been granted, focusing on post-grant actions and their statutory provisions.
What this section covers
- Defines the limitations on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's authority after a patent is granted.
Key obligations
- Compliance with these provisions is required for any post-grant action taken by the USPTO.
Practice notes
- Avoid attempting post-grant actions not covered by the specific statutory provisions, as they may be outside USPTO's jurisdiction.
Official MPEP § 321 — (note)
Source: USPTOLast Modified: 10/30/2024 08:50:22
35 U.S.C. 321 (note) Post-grant review applicability.
- (1) APPLICABILITY.—
- (A) The post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) apply only to patents subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ), except as provided in AIA § 18 and paragraph 2 below.
- (B) LIMITATION.—The Director may impose a limit on the number of post-grant reviews that may be instituted under chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, during each of the first 4 1-year periods in which the these provisions are in effect.
- (2) PENDING INTERFERENCES.—
- (A) PROCEDURES IN GENERAL.—The Director shall
determine, and include in the regulations issued under paragraph (1),
the procedures under which an interference commenced before the
effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A) is to proceed, including
whether such interference—
- (i) is to be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a petition for a post-grant review under chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code; or
- (ii) is to proceed as if the AIA had not been enacted.
- (B) PROCEEDINGS BY PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.—For purposes of an interference that is commenced before the effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A), the Director may deem the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to be the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and may allow the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct any further proceedings in that interference.
- (C) APPEALS.—The authorization to appeal or have remedy from derivation proceedings in sections 141(d) and 146 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this Act, and the jurisdiction to entertain appeals from derivation proceedings in section 1295(a)(4)(A) of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall be deemed to extend to any final decision in an interference that is commenced before the effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection and that is not dismissed pursuant to this paragraph.
- (A) PROCEDURES IN GENERAL.—The Director shall
determine, and include in the regulations issued under paragraph (1),
the procedures under which an interference commenced before the
effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A) is to proceed, including
whether such interference—
(Sept. 16, 2011, Public Law 112-29, sec. 6(f), 125 Stat. 284.)
- Ptab Contested Case
| MPEP Section | Rules |
|---|---|
| MPEP § 1305 |