Can the Chief Administrative Patent Judge decide on petitions to review decisions of the Board?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-27 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. No, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge does not have the authority to decide on petitions to review decisions of the Board. According to MPEP 1002.02(f) , “ Petitions to review decisions of the Board in patent cases are handled by the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy .” This separation of duties ensures an independent review process for Board decisions. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Petitions to the Director for Ex Parte Reexamination Appeals and Other Matters MPEP 1002 Permitted Fee Requirement for Petitions to the Director Must Be Indicated MPEP 1002 Required Director May Waive Regulations on Petition MPEP 1002 Permitted Petition to Director for PTAB Action MPEP 1002 Director Can Delegate Petition Decisions to Officials MPEP 1002 Permitted Requests for Review of PTAB Decisions and Actions MPEP 1002.02(f) Petition to Invoke Director's Supervisory Authority MPEP 1002 Petition Must Include Facts and Review Points MPEP 1002 Required Petitions Must Include Supporting Documents MPEP 1002 Required Requirement for Proper Request and Examiner Action in Petitions MPEP 1002 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What authority does the Chief Administrative Patent Judge have regarding interference proceedings? What authority does the Chief Administrative Patent Judge have over PTAB hearings? What authority does the Chief Administrative Patent Judge have regarding petitions and matters at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board? What is the role of the Chief Administrative Patent Judge in PTAB proceedings? How can the Chief Administrative Patent Judge address issues related to substantial new questions of patentability in ex parte reexa...