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.
|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|
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.