April 16, 2024
Authored and Edited by Kassandra M. Officer; Cory C. Bell; Jason E. Stach
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which, if implemented, would formalize the Director Review process. The Proposed Rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.75, largely tracks the revised interim process for Director Review that was set forth following the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 24 (2021), that “[d]ecisions by [Administrative Patent Judges] must be subject to review by the Director.”
The Proposed Rule would permit a party to a Board decision to request Director Review of an institution decision, a final written decision, or a decision granting rehearing. It would likewise permit the Director to order sua sponte Director Review of an institution decision, a final written decision, or a decision granting rehearing. Consistent with the revised interim process, a party would be limited to requesting Director Review or rehearing by the Board, i.e., it would not be permitted to request both. Unless granted an extension by the Director, the timing for requesting Director Review would be the same as that for requesting rehearing (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)), and no response to such a request would be permitted absent Director authorization. The request would be limited to 15 pages (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v)) and, absent authorization, could not introduce new evidence. Further, requesting Director Review or the Director’s initiation of sua sponte Director Review would not stay the underlying proceeding unless the Director ordered otherwise; however, it would reset the time for appeal until after all issues on Director Review were resolved.
Interestingly, the revised interim process limited requests for Director Review of institution decisions or decisions granting rehearing of institution decisions to those decisions presenting (a) an abuse of discretion or (b) important issues of law or policy. It likewise limited requests for Director Review of final written decisions or decisions granting rehearing of final written decisions to those decisions presenting (a) an abuse of discretion, (b) important issues of law or policy, (c) erroneous findings of material fact, or (d) erroneous conclusions of law. Such limitations, however, are notably absent from the Proposed Rule.
The USPTO will accept comments and feedback from the public through June 17, 2024.
Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.