FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 14

Issue of patent

Current through Pub. L. 119-102
Title 35Patents·Ch. 14 — ISSUE OF PATENT
(a)In General.—If it appears that an applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, a written notice of allowance of the application shall be given or mailed to the applicant. The notice shall specify a sum, constituting the issue fee and any required publication fee, which shall be paid within 3 months thereafter.
(b)Effect of Payment.—Upon payment of this sum the patent may issue, but if payment is not timely made, the application shall be regarded as abandoned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

35 U.S.C. § 151 (Issue of patent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
135 S. Ct. 831 (Supreme Court, 2015)
632 case citations
Arachnid, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Merit Industries, Inc.
939 F.2d 1574 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
127 case citations
Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalbert
910 N.E.2d 330 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
28 case citations
Custer v. United States
622 F.2d 554 (Court of Claims, 1980)
18 case citations
Blacklight Power, Inc. v. James E. Rogan, Director, Patent and Trademark Office
295 F.3d 1269 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
15 case citations
A. F. Stoddard & Company, Ltd. v. C. Marshall Dann, Commissioner of Patents
564 F.2d 556 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
14 case citations
In Re Richard N. Bennett
766 F.2d 524 (Federal Circuit, 1985)
14 case citations
University of Massachusetts v. Kappos
903 F. Supp. 2d 77 (District of Columbia, 2012)
14 case citations
Tafas v. Dudas
541 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Virginia, 2008)
10 case citations
In Re Engage, Inc.
315 B.R. 208 (D. Massachusetts, 2004)
6 case citations
Weiss v. United States
146 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Massachusetts, 2001)
4 case citations
BEC Pressure Controls Corp. v. Dwyer Instruments, Inc.
380 F. Supp. 1397 (N.D. Indiana, 1974)
3 case citations
Jewish Hospital of St. Louis v. Idexx Laboratories
951 F. Supp. 1 (D. Maine, 1996)
3 case citations
Sampson v. Dann
466 F. Supp. 965 (District of Columbia, 1978)
3 case citations
Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology and IGT
491 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. California, 2007)
3 case citations
DH Technology, Inc. v. Synergystex International, Inc.
937 F. Supp. 902 (N.D. California, 1996)
2 case citations
Harley v. Lehman
981 F. Supp. 9 (District of Columbia, 1997)
2 case citations
Abraxis Bioscience, LLC v. Kappos
10 F. Supp. 3d 53 (District of Columbia, 2014)
2 case citations

Source Credit

History

(Added Pub. L. 112–211, title II, §202(b)(6), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1536.)

Editorial Notes

Editorial Notes

Prior Provisions
A prior section 151, act July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 803; Pub. L. 89–83, §4, July 24, 1965, 79 Stat. 260; Pub. L. 93–601, §3, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1956; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906, related to issue of patent, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 112–211, title II, §202(b)(6), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1536.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date
Section effective on the date that is 1 year after Dec. 18, 2012, applicable to patents issued before, on, or after that date and patent applications pending on or filed after that date, and not effective with respect to patents in litigation commenced before that date, see section 203 of Pub. L. 112–211, set out as a note under section 27 of this title.