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.
| 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 |
| General Electric Co. v. United Techs. Corp., Case IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 | Precedential | 07/06/2017 | 09/09/2019 | Disclaim Patent Claims,37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) | Pre-Institution Disclaimer: C.F.R. § 42.107(e) prohibits institution of inter partes review where Patent Owner has disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution ... Read More |
| LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 | Precedential | 09/17/2015 | 01/19/2016 | Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) | One-Year Time Bar: Under AIA § 315(b), institution of an IPR is prohibited if the petition is filed more than one year after the date a petitioner is first served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent challenged in the petition. Subsequent complaints do not reset the clock. ... Read More |
| Gen. Plastic Indus., Co. v. Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 | Precedential | 09/06/2017 | 09/06/2017 | 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),Institution of inter partes review | In an expanded panel decision the PTAB determined that weighing the equities of permitting follow-on petitions in AIA proceedings is a proper exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The panel further provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Board considers in evaluating follow-on petitions. ... Read More |