Resources

PTAB Tracker

Use our PTAB Precedential Decisions tracker for up-to-date info on the latest decisions by the PTAB.

All PTAB precedential and informative decisions organized by subject matter are presented in the expandable table below. Archived decisions include those decisions that are not pertinent to or less pertinent to current PTAB practice. Links to alphabetical lists of the precedential and informative decisions are available at the bottom of this page.

Type
Date Issued
Date Designated
Issue Addressed

NOTE: Scroll the table left and right to see additional fields

Decision Name / Case # Type Issued Designated Issue Addressed Summary
Facebook, Inc. v. Skky, LLC, Case CBM2016-00091, Paper 12 Precedential 09/28/2017 12/21/2017 Covered business method review eligibility, AIA § 18 Pre-institution Statutory Disclaimer: AIA § 18 does not permit institution of a covered business method (CBM) review of a patent based on claims disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) prior to institution... Read More
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG (§ III.C.5, First Paragraph), Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 Precedential 12/15/2017 08/02/2019 Multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Discretionary denial: articulates six factors the Board should address when considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under AIA § 325(d)... Read More
Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00064, -00065, -00085, Paper 10 (“Valve II”) Precedential 05/01/2019 08/02/2019 Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Joinder/AIA § 314(A) Discretion – General Plastic factor 1 applies to a joined petitioner... Read More
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Case IPR2017-00948, Paper 34 Precedential 01/18/2019 03/18/2019 Motions to amend, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) Motion to Amend: AIA § 316(D) permits substitute claims presented in a motion to amend to be found invalid based on any ground of invalidity, not just §§ 102 & 103... Read More
Ventex Co., Ltd., v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., Case IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 Precedential 01/24/2021 04/16/2019 Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) RPI/One-Year Time Bar: AIA §§ 312(A)(2), 315(B), proceeding terminated where petition failed to name a time-barred RPI/privy... Read More
GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., Case IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 Precedential 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) One-Year Time Bar: One-year time bar triggered after the service of a complaint, regardless of whether the serving party lacked standing to sue or the pleading was otherwise deficient... Read More
K-40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc., Case IPR2013-00203, Paper 34 Precedential 05/21/2014 03/18/2019 Oral argument, 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 Motion requesting live testimony: granted pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70... Read More
Oticon Medical AB et al. v. Cochlear Limited, Case IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 Precedential 10/16/2019 03/24/2020 Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),Multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Discretionary denial: no denial under AIA § 325(d) where petition asserts new, noncumulative prior art; no denial under AIA § 314(a) where petition is timely filed, patent owner concedes parallel proceedings are not entirely duplicative, and patent owner fails to provide evidence of district court delays or a trial date... Read More
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., Case IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 Precedential 01/31/2021 08/29/2019 Bar due to petitioner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) AIA § 315(a)(1) – applying Click-to-Call to petitioner’s action and denying institution... Read More
Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 Precedential 12/20/2019 12/20/2019 Inter partes review scope – 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) Requirements for printed publication: AIA § 311(b), for purposes of institution, a petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that an asserted reference qualifies as a printed publication... Read More
Snap Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC., Case IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 Precedential 10/21/2020 12/17/2020 Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Parallel Proceedings: Instituting inter partes review under Fintiv in view of a stay in the district court proceeding... Read More
Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., Case IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 Precedential 12/01/2020 12/17/2020 Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Parallel Proceedings: Instituting inter partes review under Fintiv in view of petitioner’s broad stipulation to forego certain prior art invalidity grounds in district court... Read More
RPX Corporation v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, Case IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 Precedential 10/02/2020 12/04/2020 Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b),Real parties in interest,35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) Real Party in Interest: Applying a “flexible approach” to determining whether a non-party is a real party in interest based on the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018)... Read More
Adello Biologics, LLC v. Amgen, Inc., Case PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 Precedential 02/14/2019 04/16/2019 Real parties in interest,35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) Mandatory Notices, Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner may amend Mandatory Notice to add real party-in-interest (RPI) without altering the petition filing date... Read More
Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 Precedential 02/13/2019 04/16/2019 Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b),Real parties in interest,35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2),35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) Mandatory Notices, Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner may update its identification of real parties-in-interest (RPIs) post institution of IPR.... Read More
Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129, 01130, Paper 15 Precedential 02/25/2019 03/07/2019 Motions to amend, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) Motion to Amend: order providing guidance on motions to amend under AIA § 316(d) including identifying reasonable number of substitute claims and scope of substitute claims... Read More
DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. MedIdea, L.L.C., Case IPR2018-00315, Paper 29 Precedential 01/23/2019 03/18/2019 Conduct of the Proceeding,37 C.F.R. § 42.5 Request for live testimony denied where witness did not previously provide declaration, and live testimony would be new evidence. ... Read More
DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC, Case IPR2018-01412, Paper 21 Precedential 06/14/2019 06/11/2020 Joint Motion to Terminate,35 U.S.C. § 317(b) Joint Motion to Terminate: All collateral agreements referenced in a settlement agreement must be filed along with a Joint Motion to Terminate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), even if the collateral agreements are not between the parties involved in the IPR. ... Read More
Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, Case IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 Precedential 01/08/2019 04/05/2019 Request for Rehearing,37 C.F.R. § 42.71 Request for Rehearing: Before filing a rehearing request that involves new evidence, a party should request a conference call with the Board to argue that “good cause” exists for admitting the new evidence. ... Read More
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH, Case IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 Precedential 07/06/2020 07/06/2020 Motions to amend, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) Motion to Amend: Sua sponte grounds of rejection of substitute claims presented in a Motion to Amend may only be raised in “rare circumstances” and the PTAB must provide the Patent Owner notice and an opportunity to respond... Read More
SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., Case IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 Precedential 10/06/2021 12/04/2021 Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),Bar due to petitioner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) Real parties-in-interest: At the institution stage, resolving whether a non-party is a real party-in-interest is unnecessary, unless estoppel or a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315 applies. ... Read More
Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., Case CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 Precedential 05/14/2015 01/12/2016 Estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 325(e) Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1): AIA § 325(e)(1) estoppel is applied on a claim by claim basis and therefore estoppel does not attach to claims not challenged or not instituted in a prior post-grant proceeding. ... Read More