ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

35 U.S.C. § 327Settlement

submitted 15 years ago by Pub. L. 112-29 to r/title-35-PATENTS · 247 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

A post-grant patent review ends for a petitioner if both sides jointly ask to end it. This doesn't apply after the Patent Office has already decided the case. Any settlement agreement must be in writing and filed with the Office.

(a) In General — If a petitioner and the patent owner jointly ask to end the post-grant review, the review is terminated for that petitioner — unless the Patent Office has already decided the merits of the case before the request comes in. If the review ends this way, that petitioner (and anyone closely tied to them) doesn't get hit with the "estoppel" rule in section 325(e), which would otherwise stop them from raising the same arguments again. If every petitioner drops out, the Office can either end the whole review or go on to issue a final written decision under section 328(a). (b) Agreements in Writing — Any settlement or side deal between the patent owner and a petitioner — including any related side agreements — must be put in writing. A true copy has to be filed with the Patent Office before the review is terminated between those parties. If either side asks, the agreement is treated as confidential business information: it's kept separate from the patent's public file, and only shown to federal agencies on request, or to anyone else who shows good cause.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a)In General.—

A post-grant 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 post-grant review is terminated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel under section 325(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 post-grant review. If no petitioner remains in the post-grant review, the Office may terminate the post-grant review or proceed to a final written decision under section 328(a).

(b)Agreements in Writing.—

Any agreement or understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, including any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or understanding, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of a post-grant review under this section shall be in writing, and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the Office before the termination of the post-grant review as between the parties. At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents, and shall be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 310.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 2011Enacted · Pub. L. 112-29 · 125 Stat. 310

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 112-29 on 2011-09-16.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case