FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 31
Settlement
35 U.S.C. § 317
Title35 — Patents
Chapter31 — INTER PARTES REVIEW
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 317 (Settlement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
35 U.S.C. § 317.
Text
(a)In General.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed. If the inter partes review is terminated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel under section 315(e) shall attach to the petitioner, or to the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, on the basis of that petitioner's institution of that inter partes review. If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).
(b)Agreements in Writing.—Any agreement or understanding between the pa
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services
859 F.3d 1044 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.
661 F.3d 629 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
753 F.3d 1258 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.
943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. California, 2013)
Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Lee
782 F.3d 1376 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Lsi Corporation
926 F.3d 1327 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Click-To-Call Technologies, Lp v. Ingenio, Inc.
899 F.3d 1321 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
896 F.3d 1322 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor Corporation
988 F.3d 1341 (Federal Circuit, 2021)
Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc.
931 F.3d 1363 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Kappos
508 F. App'x 953 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Tesco Corp. v. Weatherford International, Inc.
599 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Texas, 2009)
1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)
333 F. Supp. 3d 135 (E.D. New York, 2018)
Callaway Golf Co. v. Kappos
802 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Virginia, 2011)
Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp.
811 F.3d 1326 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.
854 F.3d 1364 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
In Re: Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
856 F.3d 902 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Rea
45 F. Supp. 3d 526 (E.D. Virginia, 2014)
Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
(Federal Circuit, 2019)
Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless
(S.D. California, 2021)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4604(a)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–570; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13202(a)(5), (c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1901, 1902; Pub. L. 112–29, §6(a), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 303.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Pub. L. 112–29 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to restriction on subsequent request for inter partes reexamination.
2002—Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(c)(1), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(a)(5)(A), substituted "third-party requester nor its privies" for "patent owner nor the third-party requester, if any, nor privies of either".
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(a)(5)(B), struck out "United States Code," after "title 28,".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective date, with provisions for graduated implementation, see section 6(c)(2) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 311 of this title.
Effective Date
Section effective Nov. 29, 1999, and applicable to any patent issuing from an original application filed in the United States on or after that date, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4608(a)] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1999 Amendment note under section 41 of this title.
Amendments
2011—Pub. L. 112–29 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to restriction on subsequent request for inter partes reexamination.
2002—Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(c)(1), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(a)(5)(A), substituted "third-party requester nor its privies" for "patent owner nor the third-party requester, if any, nor privies of either".
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–273, §13202(a)(5)(B), struck out "United States Code," after "title 28,".
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective date, with provisions for graduated implementation, see section 6(c)(2) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 311 of this title.
Effective Date
Section effective Nov. 29, 1999, and applicable to any patent issuing from an original application filed in the United States on or after that date, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4608(a)] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1999 Amendment note under section 41 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/317.