Standard for Declaring a Patent Interference
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has discretion to declare an interference involving a patent application. The current standard requires a two-way patentability analysis for the Director to be of the opinion that an interference-in- fact exists. In view of public commentary suggesting that, at least in some cases, a one-way patentability analysis should be sufficient, USPTO provides reasons for the current standard and solicits comments on the propriety of that standard.
- Task
- Read the news
- Patent or trademark
- both
- Legacy system
- —
- Current entry point
- www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/12/20/00-32374/standard-for-declaring-a-patent-interference (permanent link in the Federal Register, verified 2026-09-30)
- Legacy system and where it moved
- No legacy system name mention in title or summary )
- Fee
- No fee mention in title or summary )
- What you need (account or API key)
- No account or key mention in title or summary )
- Published
- 2000-12-20
- Document type
- Notice
- Source
- USPTO documents published in the Federal Register (Federal Register API)(retrieved 2026-10-06)
Everything in the same category
Read the news (all 1988) · both (all 2333)
Related entry points
- Notice of Public Roundtable on Genetic Diagnostic Testing
- Request for Comments on Director Review, Precedential Opinion Panel Review, and Internal Circulation and Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
- Revision of the Materiality to Patentability Standard for the Duty To Disclose Information in Patent Applications
- Revision of Standard for Granting an Inter Partes Reexamination Request
- Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions
- Changes To Permit Delayed Submission of Certain Requirements for Prioritized Examination
- Request for Comments on Motion To Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Request for Comments Regarding the Continuation of the Accelerated Examination Program
- Rules of Practice To Allocate the Burden of Persuasion on Motions To Amend in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Request for Comments on Proposed Change To Missing Parts Practice
- Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element Is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility
- Changes To Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims
- Request for Comments on the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program
- Changes Under Consideration to Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-Count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
- Changes To Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations
- Changes to Continued Prosecution Application Practice