Local Patent Rule 3.3 — Non-Infringement, Invalidity and Unenforceability
A published court requirement that applies in New York. Category: Local Rules. Effective January 1, 2026. Verified against the official source (N.D.N.Y. — Local Rules (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York)) on November 3, 2026.
Summary
Local Patent Rule 3.3 — Non-Infringement, Invalidity and Unenforceability: the court's own rule, verbatim from the Local Rules of Practice, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, effective January 1, 2026 (official PDF, sha-custodied). Court-level requirement: applies in every case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York as its section states (Section XV, Local Rules Of Procedure For Patent Cases), alongside the federal rules and any judge-specific procedures.
Requirement
Not later than thirty (30) days after service upon it of the Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, each party opposing a claim of patent infringement on the basis of non-infringement, patent invalidity or patent unenforceability shall serve on all parties its Disclosure of Non-Infringement, Invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions which shall contain the following information: (a) Non-Infringement contentions shall contain a chart, responsive to the chart required under Local Patent Rule 3.1(c)(i), that identifies as to each limitation in each asserted claim disclosed in the patentee’s claim chart, to the extent then known by the party alleging infringement, whether such element is present literally or under the doctrine of equivalents in each Accused Instrumentality and, if not, the reason for such denial and the relevant distinctions, and a chart, responsive to the chart required under Local Patent Rule 3.1(c)(ii), that displays a view from each angle of the accused design or variety of plant and of all embodiments and stating whether the accused design or variety of plant is substantially similar to the claimed design or variety of plant and, if not, the reasons for such a denial. (b) Invalidity Contentions must contain the following information to the extent then known to the party asserting invalidity: (1) The identity of each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious, including in the case of a design or variety of plant patent a view from every available angle and all available embodiments. Each prior art patent shall be identified by its number, country of origin, and date of issue. Each prior art publication shall be identified by its title, date of publication and, where feasible, author and publisher. Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used or known, the date the offer or use took place or the information became known, the location where the item was sold or publicly used, and the identity of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or entity which made the information known or to whom it was made known. Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) shall be identified by providing the name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under which the invention or any part of it was derived. Prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) shall be identified by providing the identities of the person(s) or entities involved in and the circumstances surrounding the making of the invention before the patent applicant(s); (2) Whether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. If obviousness is alleged, an explanation of why the prior art renders the asserted claim obvious, including an identification of any combinations of prior art showing obviousness, the reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references at the time of the invention in issue in the case, and identification of what the accused considers to be the primary reference. (3) A chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation or view of each asserted claim is found, and for utility patents, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function; and (4) Any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) or enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of any of the asserted claims. (c) Subject to amendment in the event of later discovered facts, unenforceability contentions shall contain, in detail, each ground then known upon which the accused infringer will assert that any patent in suit is unenforceable. If the accused infringer’s claim of unenforceability is based upon inequitable conduct, the accused infringer shall describe each omission or misrepresentation made to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and shall state all grounds upon which the accused infringer will argue at trial that those prosecuting the patent intended to deceive the PTO, including the identification of any prior art references not disclosed to the PTO during the prosecution of the patent in suit, any facts suggesting that one or more persons substantially involved in the prosecution of the patent in suit were aware of such prior art reference prior to the issuance of the patent in suit, and any facts relevant to the element of intent to deceive.
Source of truth
Not later than thirty (30) days after service upon it of the Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, each party opposing a claim of patent infringement on the basis of non-infringement, patent invalidity or patent unenforceability shall serve on all parties it
- Source health
- Healthy · checked November 14, 2026
- Effective date
- January 1, 2026
- Last verified
- November 3, 2026benchpath-nyfed-rules-2026-11-03
Related rules
2d Cir. Local Rule 25.2 — Submission of PDF Documents
2d Cir. Local Rule 25.2 — Submission of PDF Documents: the court's own rule, verbatim from the rule's own page on the court's site (read 2026-11-03; the page sha-custodied). Court-level requirement: applies in every appeal and proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, alongside the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Duval County Local Rules Implementing S.B. 7 (Texas Fair Defense Act) — Order Amending Local Rules of the District/County Court of Duval County, amended July 11, 2022
Duval County's indigent-defense and magistration rules under the Texas Fair Defense Act (S.B. 7): who may be booked into the county jail and on what paper; arrest-case numbering; presentment to a magistrate within 48 hours (art. 15.16); the magistrate's warnings, counsel inquiry, interpreter duty, indigence determination and appointment of counsel within 24 hours of a request; the alternative appointment plan under art. 26.04(g)-(h) with annual applications, seven attorney categories (capital, first and second degree, third degree/state jail/misdemeanor, competency, appeals, post-conviction, extradition), CLE and experience standards, random rotation within each category, written acceptance within 48 hours, first contact by the end of the next working day, replacement and suspension of counsel, fee applications within five days of completing services and the compensation attachment ($500 pleas; $175/$150 hourly; $1,400 per jury-trial day; appellate caps); bail schedules by offense class with a personal bond office (fee $20 or 3%), pre-trial supervision and revocation hearings within two working days; arraignment settings and notice; repeal of conflicting rules.
Starr County Local Rules for the Judicial District Courts (229th and 381st District Courts, applying in part to the County Court at Law; approved May 31, 2018; approved and recommended to the Supreme Court by the Fifth Region's Presiding Judge August 9, 2018)
The 23 local rules of the Starr County district courts: definitions and the election of the Local Administrative District Judge (last Friday in January of odd years; two-year term from February 1); random, equal assignment of district cases and the County Court at Law's share (family cases, civil cases pleading $100,000 or less, misdemeanors); the case-numbering format effective January 1, 2019 (year, CV/CR/CRS/FM/TAX, five digits; CRS for the 229th, CR for the 381st); notice of visiting-judge assignments; electronically transmitted pleadings (cover sheet, seven-day fee window, returns of service and bonds on paper, one-hour clerk handling of child-protection filings); transfer of related civil cases to the earlier court and SAPCR transfer to the divorce court; pre-trial settings through the Court Coordinator; District Clerk duties and I-Docket access; severance; temporary, emergency and ex parte orders; uncontested matters first; assignment of related prosecutions and superseding-indictment numbering (S1, S2); the protocol for trial priority (jury over non-jury, criminal over civil, jailed defendants first, oldest case first, special settings by written reasons, duties of counsel with conflicting settings); court staff; jury impaneling; the ad litem/guardian ad litem/amicus appointment rotation, duties, vouchers within thirty days and objections within thirty days; and courtroom decorum and attire.
Local Rules for the Jim Wells County Court at Law — effective January 1, 2023
The Jim Wells County Court at Law's rules: ad litem, guardian ad litem and amicus appointment lists, qualifications, duties, flat-fee ($275) and hourly ($75–$125) compensation, voucher deadlines and fee objections; rules of administration with the 79th District Court (family-code cases and civil cases between $500 and $250,000 assigned to the County Court at Law); remote non-jury proceedings by Zoom with e-mailed setting requests, Dropbox exhibits and YouTube broadcast; settings, proposed orders, exhibits and courtroom decorum.