Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

In re Swanson: Reaffirming a Substantially Old Question

<b>In re Swanson</b> will likely have the effect of encouraging even more third-party ex parte re-examination requests, while only discouraging an applicant's incentive to perform a patent search to provide the best art to the PTO.

9 minute read January 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM
By
Bryan Gallo
In re Swanson: Reaffirming a Substantially Old Question

According to the legislative history accompanying 35 U.S.C. '303(a), Congress intended the re-examination procedure to provide an important “quality check” on patents that would allow the government to remove defective and erroneously granted patents.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.

October 01, 2026