Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> FileWrapper
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: FileWrapperFederal Circuit to consider en banc whether new evidence may be introduced in a section 145 action
By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.
In an order yesterday, the Federal Circuit has agreed to consider the scope of evidence to be considered in an action filed under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain review of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The case is Hyatt v. Kappos. Specifically, the court ordered briefing on the following issues:
(a) Are there any limitations on the admissibility of evidence in section 145 proceedings? In particular—
(i) Does the Administrative Procedure Act require review on the agency record in proceedings pursuant to section 145?(ii) Does section 145 provide for a de novo proceeding in the district court?(iii) If section 145 does not provide for a de novo proceeding in the district court, what limitations exist on the presentation of new evidence before the district court?(b) Did the district court properly exclude the Hyatt declaration?
In the original panel decision, the court affirmed the district court's exclusion of evidence that "should have been" raised before the Board but was not, specifically evidence relating to enablement. Judge Moore dissented, contending Hyatt was entitled to introduce new evidence in a § 145 proceeding.
No oral argument date has yet been set. To read the full order granting en banc review, click here.
Full post as published by FileWrapper on February 18, 2010 (boomark / email).
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
Sprint-Nextel
Sued for $1 Billion Plus in Federal Class Action
Hometown and Renown Health
Face Federal Class Action
Compass Group
Faces Federal Race Discrimination Class Action

Ninth Circuit En Banc Finds GERA Valid under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
En Banc Federal Circuit To Rehear Tafas v. Doll
En Banc Federal Circuit Revives Design Patent Law
En Banc Federal Circuit: Infringement of Product-by-Process Claim Requires Practicing the Process









