2011—Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(c)(3)(A)(ii), which directed substitution of “it has been shown 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 a claim of the patent is raised”, was executed by making the substitution for “a substantial new question of patentability affecting a claim of a patent is raised”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Pub. L. 112–29, § 6(a), amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If, in a determination made under section 312(a), the Director finds that it has been shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request, the determination shall include an order for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question. The order may be accompanied by the initial action of the Patent and Trademark Office on the merits of the inter partes reexamination conducted in accordance with section 314.”
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, which enacted this section.
Amendment by section 6(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on
Amendment by section 6(c)(3)(A)(ii) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective
Section effective