FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 31
Decision of the Board
35 U.S.C. § 318
Title35 — Patents
Chapter31 — INTER PARTES REVIEW
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 318 (Decision of the Board) 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. § 318.
Text
(a)Final Written Decision.—If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d).
(b)Certificate.—If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent by operation of the certificate any new or amended claim determined to be patentable.
(c)Intervening
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
594 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2021)
Fresenius Usa, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc.
582 F.3d 1288 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services
859 F.3d 1044 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
549 F.3d 842 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
941 F.3d 1320 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation
814 F.3d 1309 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation
878 F.3d 1364 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Lsi Corporation
926 F.3d 1327 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
868 F.3d 1350 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc.
807 F.3d 1353 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Sony Corporation v. Iancu
924 F.3d 1235 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta Gmbh
11 F.4th 1363 (Federal Circuit, 2021)
Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corporation
946 F.3d 1348 (Federal Circuit, 2020)
Zachary Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int'l
89 F.4th 1154 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC
701 F. App'x 978 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Biodelivery Scis. Int'l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
935 F.3d 1362 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Sas Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC.
842 F.3d 1223 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
983 F. Supp. 2d 713 (E.D. Virginia, 2014)
Odom v. Microsoft Corp.
429 F. App'x 967 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
Camelbak Products, LLC v. Zak Designs, Inc.
(W.D. Arkansas, 2022)
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(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 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, text read as follows: "Once an order for inter partes reexamination of a patent has been issued under section 313, the patent owner may obtain a stay of any pending litigation which involves an issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes reexamination order, unless the court before which such litigation is pending determines that a stay would not serve the interests of justice."
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
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, text read as follows: "Once an order for inter partes reexamination of a patent has been issued under section 313, the patent owner may obtain a stay of any pending litigation which involves an issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes reexamination order, unless the court before which such litigation is pending determines that a stay would not serve the interests of justice."
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
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. § 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/318.