2011—Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(a), amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to determination of issue by Director.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(c)(3)(A)(i)(I), substituted “the information presented in the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request,” for “a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request,” and “A showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request” for “The existence of a substantial new question of patentability”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(c)(3)(A)(i)(II), substituted “the showing required by subsection (a) has not been made,” for “no substantial new question of patentability has been raised,”.
2002—Pub. L. 107–273, § 13202(c)(1), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273, § 13202(a)(2)(A), struck out second sentence which read as follows: “On the Director’s initiative, and at any time, the Director may determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents and publications.”
Pub. L. 107–273, § 13105(a), inserted at end “The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office.”
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–273, § 13202(a)(2)(B), struck out “, if any” after “third-party requester”.
Amendment by section 6(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on
Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(c)(3)(B), (C),
Amendment by section 13105(a) of Pub. L. 107–273 applicable with respect to any determination of the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that is made on or after
Section effective