FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 32
Institution of post-grant review
35 U.S.C. § 324
Title35 — Patents
Chapter32 — POST-GRANT REVIEW
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 324 (Institution of post-grant review) 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. § 324.
Text
(a)Threshold.—The Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.
(b)Additional Grounds.—The determination required under subsection (a) may also be satisfied by a showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications.
(c)Timing.—The Director shall determine whether to institute a post-grant review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 321 within 3 months after—
(1)receiving a preliminary response to the petition un
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Virtualagility Inc. v. salesforce.com, Inc.
759 F.3d 1307 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.
793 F.3d 1306 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services
859 F.3d 1044 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Blue Calypso, LLC. v. Groupon, Inc.
815 F.3d 1331 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Sightsound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.
809 F.3d 1307 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation
878 F.3d 1364 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
868 F.3d 1350 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Market-Alerts Pty. Ltd. v. Bloomberg Finance L.P.
922 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Delaware, 2013)
Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.
986 F.3d 1367 (Federal Circuit, 2021)
Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.
621 F. App'x 995 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Sipco, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co.
980 F.3d 865 (Federal Circuit, 2020)
Versata Development Corp. v. Rea
959 F. Supp. 2d 912 (E.D. Virginia, 2013)
GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
618 F. App'x 667 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Lee
793 F.3d 1352 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lee
151 F. Supp. 3d 665 (E.D. Virginia, 2016)
Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.
682 F. App'x 928 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Secure Axcess, LLC v. Pnc Bank National Association
859 F.3d 998 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH v. Nexus Perforating LLC
(S.D. Texas, 2021)
New Vision Gaming v. Sg Gaming, Inc.
(Federal Circuit, 2021)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 112–29, §6(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 306.)
Editorial Notes
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Section effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable only to patents described in section 3(n)(1) of Pub. L. 112–29 (35 U.S.C. 100 note), with certain exceptions and limitations, see section 6(f)(2), (3) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 321 of this title.
Effective Date
Section effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable only to patents described in section 3(n)(1) of Pub. L. 112–29 (35 U.S.C. 100 note), with certain exceptions and limitations, see section 6(f)(2), (3) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 321 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/324.