§

37 C.F.R. § 1.137

Section 1.137 - Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution
Section 1.137 - Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution

8 Citing briefs

  1. Arrow International, Inc. et al v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.,

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Filed July 13, 2006

    See 35 U.S.C. § 120. The patent owner filed a petition for revival of the earlier application under 37 CFR 1.137(b). Suntiger, 1997 WL 855581 at *1.

  2. Whitewater West Industries, LTD. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Sanctions

    Filed August 15, 2018

    K at KM00098-99. 14 37 C.F.R. § 1.137 applies the same “unintentional” standard as 37 C.F.R. § 1.378.

  3. Cornish v. Dudas et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Extension of Time to File Action

    Filed January 15, 2008

    It concerns the revival of an abandoned patent application, a terminated reexamination prosecution, or a lapsed patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(a). Section 1.

  4. Global Equity Management (Sa) Pty. Ltd. v. Ebay, Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §101

    Filed March 10, 2017

    [NOTE. The United States Patent and Trademark Office may require additional Information if there Is a question as to whether either the abandonment or the delay In filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b) was unintentional (MPEP 711.03(c), subsections (JII)(C) and (0))].

  5. Arrow International, Inc. et al v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.,

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Filed July 13, 2006

    at 1100-19–1100-20. The PTO’s sole responsibility with regard to this statute is to determine whether an application may be restored under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b). C. A Subsequent Revival Decision by the PTO would have No Effect on This Court’s Adjudication of Notice under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(B)(iii).

  6. SprinGuard Technology Group Inc. v. United States Patent And Trademark Office et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 6, 2009

    Case 1:08-cv-12119-RWZ Document 9 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 6 of 22 5 4. SprinGuard’s Request for Reconsideration On May 11, 2007, SprinGuard filed a request for reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b). See Complaint ¶ 49 & Exhibit F attached thereto; A334-55.

  7. Arrow International, Inc. et al v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.,

    Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 28, 2006

    As there is no time limit on the filing of a rescission, Arrow has complied with the second statutory requirement. Arrow submitted the rescission request to the U.S. Patent Office on March 23, 2006 together with a Petition for Revival of Potentially Abandoned Application Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b). Silfin Ex.

  8. Arrow International, Inc. et al v. Spire Biomedical, Inc.,

    MOTION to Stay re MOTION for Summary Judgment Pending Review

    Filed March 27, 2006

    The Patent Office has a procedure in place for addressing such issues. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(f), a patent owner may petition the Patent Office to revive an abandoned application. Arrow filed a petition on March 23, 2006, the day after this matter was brought to its attention, along with a Rescission of Previous Nonpublication Request.