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

Fill out the form below to receive our monthly newsletter and updates on your selected areas of interest. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.

  • Fish & Richardson P.C. is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we’ll only use your personal information to administer your account and to provide the services you requested from us. From time to time, we would like to contact you about our services, as well as other content that may be of interest to you. If you consent to us contacting you for this purpose, please tick below.
  • In order to provide you the content requested, we need to store and process your personal data. If you consent to us storing your personal data for this purpose, please tick the checkbox below.
  • You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. This can be done by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of marketing emails you receive from us, or by emailing info@fr.com stating that you would like to be unsubscribed.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.