What standards are similar to lawsuits in the context of MPEP?

Interference proceedings are indeed similar to lawsuits in the context of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) because they involve disputes over the priority of invention between two or more parties claiming the same invention. These proceedings can resemble a trial-like environment where evidence is presented, and arguments are made to determine who is entitled to the patent rights for the invention in question.

In an interference, the parties involved must provide evidence and legal arguments, akin to how parties present their cases in court. This process allows for a thorough examination of the facts surrounding priority, focusing on who was the first to invent. As such, it operates under rules that are more formal and adversarial than other examination procedures, creating a similarity to litigation.

In contrast, utility patent applications, reexamination procedures, and citation of prior art relate to different aspects of patent application processing and do not engage in the same kind of adversarial disputes that define interference proceedings. Utility applications are focused on the examination of patentability, reexaminations involve a review process of granted patents rather than disputes between parties, and the citation of prior art is a part of the examination process that does not involve conflicting claims between multiple inventors.