Helfgott & Karas, P.C., and Dov Sheffer and R.S.R. Adtec Ltd. v. Q. Todd Dickenson, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that whether an action arises under the scope of § 1338 presents a question that is unique to patent law
• explaining that whether an action arises under the scope § 1338 presents a question that is unique to patent law
• finding that PCT Rule 91.1 is legally binding on the Commissioner of the PTO
• noting that although “[t]he APA is clearly not a patent 24 law,” Federal Circuit law governed in APA action brought against PTO because plaintiff’s APA 25 claims involved alleged loss of patent-related rights
• holding “[T]he question of whether the Commissioner has violated the APA in applying the PCT rules and regulations, as well as its own regulations, raises a substantial question under the patent laws. . . .”
• “the Commissioner erred in refusing to grant Helfgott’s request for relief under PCT Rule 91.1. That error constitutes an abuse of discretion under the APA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).