Alphabetical listing of informative decisions

This is an alphabetical listing of informative decisions. For a list of precedential and informative decisions by topic, click here.

A-C

Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Patent of Dexcom, Inc., No. 2011-003298 (May 3, 2011) [Inter partes reexamination - SNQ determination not appealable]
Ex parte Adams., 2007-0441 (March 14, 2007) [Reissue - 35 U.S.C. § 251 - changes to indefinite claims]
Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., Case No. IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (March 6, 2019) (designated: August 2, 2019) [AIA §§ 312(a)(3), 314(a) - requirements of petition - deny institution, failure to identify grounds with particularity]
Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLC, IPR2025-00950, Paper 11 (September 19, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Discretionarily denying institution where the patent owner presented evidence of licensing the challenged patent, creating some settled expectations that favored Patent Owner]
Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., IPR2025-00601, -00602, -00603, Paper 9 (July 24, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Explaining that there may be some reasons why a patent owner can have settled expectations in a patent that has been in force for three years]
Amgen, Inc. v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc., Int. 105,613 (June 5, 2009) (Paper 79) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to reach motions]
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00360, Paper 15 (June 27, 2014) [Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - district court motion to amend complaint]
Anderson v. Eppstein, Int. 103,708 (May 11, 2001) (Paper 361) [Interferences - procedure - disqualification of counsel]
Ex parte Antor Media Corp., 2010-007531 (October 21, 2012) [Anticipation - reference enablement]
AOL Inc v. Coho Licensing, Paper 12, IPR2014-00771 (March 24, 2015) [Expanded panels - dissent in original decision insufficient reason to expand]
Apple Inc. v. Ferid Allani, IPR2025-00856, Paper 11 (September 5, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Declining to discretionarily deny institution based on Petitioner’s expectations that the challenged patent would not be asserted against it, after Petitioner advised Patent Owner that it did not require a license and Patent Owner did not assert the patent until eleven years later, and after the patent expired]
Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020) [AIA § 314(a), deny institution – Fintiv factors weighed in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution]
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (§ II.B), IPR2016-00204, Paper 19 (May 23, 2016) [AIA § 311(b) – discussing evidence related to determining whether an asserted reference qualifies as a printed publication]
Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 (January 19, 2018) [AIA - factors for showing good cause to seal information]
Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Paper 55, IPR2012-00022 (August 7, 2013) [AIA - deposition testimony, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 - guidelines]
Arris Group Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies LLC, Paper 10, IPR2015-00635 (May 1, 2015) [AIA - discovery, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5) - preclusion]
Ex parte Ashkenazi., 2005-2208 (October 20, 2005) [Anticipation - qualification as § 102(e) prior art]
Ashurst v. Brugger, Int. 105-482 (April 25, 2007) (Paper 44) [Interferences - additional discovery]

Bamberger v. Cheruvu, Int. 103, 844 (February 18, 1998) (Paper 409) [Interferences - motions - burdens of proof]
Barany v. McGall, Int. 105,351 (February 6, 2009) (Paper 59) [Interference - procedure - circumstances when appropriate to proceed to priority phase]
Ex parte Batteux, 2007-0622 (March 27, 2007) [Anticipation - intended treatment]
Ex parte Baxter International, Inc., 2009-006493 (March 18, 2010) [Considering expert testimony]
Ex parte Bayer Cropscience, LP, 2011-005039 (May 16, 2011) [Anticipation - in preamble of method claim]
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Paper 8, No. IPR2017-01587 (December 15, 2017) (designated: August 2, 2019) [AIA § 325(d) - delineating discretionary factors]
Ex parte Beineke, 2007-4215 (July 31, 2008) [Plant patents - 35 U.S.C. § 161 - “uncultivated state”]
Ex parte Beineke, 2007-3882 (July 30, 2008) [Plant patents - 35 U.S.C. § 161 - “uncultivated state”]
Ex parte Belinne, 2009-004693 (August 10, 2009) [Appellant’s response to rejection - burden to identify error]
Belkin International, Inc v. Optimumpath, LLC., 2011-003697 (March 30, 2011) [Inter partes reexam - SNQ determination not appealable]
Ex parte Bobrowski, 2008-0580 (March 31, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - indefiniteness - In re Steele]
Ex parte Boer, 2009-010590 (May, 21, 2012) [Ex parte appeals - petitionable not appealable matters]
Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (October 15, 2001) (Paper 29) [Interferences - cross-examination in a foreign country]
Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (December 18, 2001) (Paper 54) [Interferences - procedure - motion to amend]
Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (January 2, 2002) (Paper 55) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]

California Institute of Technology v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., Int. 105,496, Paper 126 (October 29, 2010) [Interferences - publication of interference record]
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc. (majority opinion), IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 (December 13, 2024) (designated: March 20, 2025) [AIA – denying institution where a petitioner argues for a means-plus-function construction in district court and a plain and ordinary meaning construction in a petition, but fails to explain the difference in claim construction positions or, alternatively, to provide a means-plus-function construction]
Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., Case IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (November 7, 2018) (designated: April 5, 2019) [AIA § 314(a), insufficient number of proposed grounds/challenges to claims meet reasonable likelihood standard]
Ex parte Chuang, No. 2008-5143 (November 13, 2008) [Anticipation - cDNA]
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Paper 12, No. IPR2014-00454 (August 29, 2014) [AIA - incorporation by reference, 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) - incorporated evidence improper]
Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case No. IPR2018-00242, Paper 9 (February 27, 2018) [AIA - bar due to petitioner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) - deny institution and joinder - prior declaratory judgment action]
CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., IPR2025-00068 & IPR2025-00070, Paper 25 (June 25, 2025) (designated: June 26, 2025) [AIA § 314(a) - vacating decisions granting institution of two parallel petitions where a petitioner offers distinct claim constructions in each petition, and remanding for the Board to institute at most one petition given the overlap in claims] (Director Review decision)
Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC., Paper 7, No. IPR2017-00777 (August 22, 2017) [AIA - multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution - examination]
Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg, IPR2025-01582, Paper 11 (February 25, 2026) (designated: February 25, 2026) [AIA § 312(a) – according the Petition a new filing date where Petitioner updated its mandatory notices to identify new RPIs after filing the initial Petition, and Petitioner was not time-barred based on the new filing date]
Ex parte Curry, No. 2005-0509 (June 30, 2005) [Non-functional descriptive material - data in database]

D-F

Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (June 18, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Discretionarily denying institution based on Patent Owner's settled expectations and Petitioner’s failure to provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Office resources]
Ex parte Daniels, No. 2008-0568 (May 20, 2009) (May 20, 2009) [evaluating sufficiency of affidavit]
Ex parte Dart, No. 2007-1325 (August 22, 2007) [Obviousness - analogous art, pertinent to same problem - rationales, predictable results]
DeBoer v. Gordon, Int. 105,004, Paper 18 (February 3, 2003) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]
Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case No. IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (January 24, 2019) (designated: April 5, 2019) [AIA § 314(a), insufficient number of proposed grounds/challenges to claims meet reasonable likelihood standard]
Dionne v. Liotta, Int. 104,333, Paper 119 (October 31, 2001) [Obviousness – person of ordinary skill in the art, evidence in support]
Ex parte Ditzik, No. 2018-000087 (March 2, 2018) [Issue preclusion - precluded by prior district court adjudication]
Dung v. Buehler, Int. 105,893, Paper 121 (July 23, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - late introduction of evidence]

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cameron, Int. 104,104, Paper 18 (October 31, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - request for adverse judgment]
Ellsworth v. Moore, No. Int. 104,528, Paper 54 (November 20, 2001) [Interferences - inventorship]

Ex parte Fautz, No. 2019-000106 (May 15, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [§ 101, statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
E x parte Fletcher, No. 2009-007416 (January 26, 2010) [Ex parte appeals - official notice, failure to traverse]
Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, IPR2025-01342, -01383, -01524, Paper 27 (May 12, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [AIA – Vacating notices granting institution and denying institution where Petitioner advances indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification for inconsistency with its Board position, and offers a stipulation to withdraw its arguments in district court only after Patent Owner brings the inconsistency to the Office’s attention]
Ex parte Frenk, No. 2009-005654 (June 19, 2009) [Claim construction - construing “substantially”]
Furman v. Cheng, Int. 104,523, Paper 58 (May 11, 2001) [Interferences - priority - procedure for showing]

G-I

Garmin Int'l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013) [AIA - discovery, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5), factors]
General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Paper 19, No. IPR2016-01357 (September 6, 2017) [Expanded panels, reasons for expansion]
Genise v. Desautels, Int. 104,834 (May 12, 2003) Paper 66 [Interferences - written decision following bench ruling]
Gibson v. Sturman, Int. 105,016 (2002) Papers 42 & 43 [Interferences - procedure - extension of time]
Ex parte Givens, No. 2009-003414 (August 6, 2009) [Claim construction - construe in light of specification]
Glaxco Wellcome, Inc. v. Cabilly, Int. 104,532 (April 30, 2001) [Interferences - motions - prima facie case]
Ex parte Gleave, No. 2005-2447 (January 31, 2006) [35 U.S.C. § 112, written description - examiner burden]
Gregory v. Tsui, Int. 104,228 (January 4, 2002) Paper 100, aff'd mem., No. 02-1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (January 4, 2002) [Interferences - analysis of priority; § 102(g) abandon, suppress, or conceal]
Guthrie v. Espiau, Int. 105,393 (April 18, 2007) Paper 94 [Interferences – amending priority statement; derivation, raising in priority statement]

Han v. Livak, Int. 104,670 (2002) Paper 68 (March 26, 2002) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to decide patentability issues]
Ex parte Hannun (formerly Ex parte Linden), 2018-003323 (April 1, 2019) [applying 2019 revised guidance]
Ex parte Hansen, No. 2007-3424 (May 13, 2008) [Non-functional descriptive material - decal]
Herman v. Barnes, Int. 104,812 (April 10 2003) Paper 91 [Interferences - inventorship]
Ex parte Hicks, No. 2007-2715 (November 13, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - enablement - scope]
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLC, IPR2025-00480, Paper 11 (September 4, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Declining to discretionarily deny institution where the challenged patent had not been commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in Petitioner's technology space]
Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 (July 27, 2017) [AIA - 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), deny institution - examination]
Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252 & IPR2024-01253, Paper 27 (April 17, 2025) (designated: May 7, 2025) [AIA § 314(a) – vacating decision granting institution when a district court has already found the challenged claims invalid under § 101] (Director Review decision)
Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-00582, Paper 34 (August 5, 2019) [no claims unpatentable – insufficient reason to combine references]

In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company (§ I.E), Case IPR2019-00849, Paper 14 (September 6, 2019) [AIA § 311(b) – determining, for purposes of institution, Petitioner failed to make a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication]
Intellectual Concepts, LLC v. Zannier, Inc., Int. 105,617, Paper 66 (September 19, 2008) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - admissibility]
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited, Case IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (November 21, 2013) [AIA - multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution - prior petition]

J-L

Ex parte Janakiraman, No. 2008-0998 (May 6, 2009) [Ex parte appeals - new grounds of rejection, fairness]
Ex parte Jerg, No. 2011-000044 (April 17, 2012) [Ex parte appeals - double patenting - not reaching provisional double patenting]
Curt G. Joa, Inc. v. Fameccanica.data S.P.A., Case IPR2016-00906, Paper 61 (June 20, 2017) [guidance on use of confidential information at hearing]
Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., Case IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (October 16, 2018) [denying institution – insufficient reason to combine references]
Ex parte Jud, No. 2006-1061 (January 30, 2007) [Obviousness - person of ordinary skill in the art - evidence considered]

Karim v. Jobson, Int. 105,376, Paper 99 (February 28, 2007) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to decide patentability issues]
Kaufman v. Talieh, Int. 105,233, Paper 23 (November 19, 2004) [Interferences - settlement - actions construed to be request for adverse judgment]
Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (December 15, 2016) (designated March 21, 2018) [AIA - multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution - examination]
Khavari v. D.T., Int. 104,696, Paper 21 (2001) [Interferences - motions - untimely and argumentative motions list]
Ex parte Kim, No. 2007-3980 (May 29, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 – indefiniteness - lack of specification guidance]
Ex parte Kimizuka, No. 2018-001081 (May 15, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 – statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
Kokusai Electric Corporation v. ASM IP Holding B.V., Case IPR2018-01151, Paper 38 (August 20, 2019) [granting joint motion to terminate, not deciding motion to amend]
Kopf-Sill v. Yager, Int. 104,718, Paper 81 (March 11, 2002) [Interferences - motions - untimely motions]
Ex parte Kraus, No. 2005-0841, Paper 52 (September 21, 2006) [Reissue - recapture]
Ex parte Kraus, No. 2005-0841, Paper 50 (February 22, 2006) [Reissue - recapture]
Kundu v. Ragunathan, Int. 104,843, Paper 51 (October 18, 2002) [Interferences - priority - § 102(g) abandon, suppress, or conceal]

Lalonde v. Li, Int. 105,607, Paper 23 (March 19, 2008) [Interferences - motions - scope of motions list]
Ex parte Lazzara, No. 2007-0192 (November 13, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 112, indefiniteness - term of degree]
LeVeen v. Edwards, Int. 104,290, Paper 348 (April 23, 2002) [Interferences - motions - striking improper brief]
LeVeen v. Edwards, Int. 104,290, Paper 351 (2002) [Interferences - motions - untimely arguments]
Longi Green Energy Tech. Co., v. Hanwha Solutions Corp., Case IPR2019-01072, Paper 33 (August 18, 2020) [AIA, addressing remote hearings and demonstrative exhibits]
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, Case No. IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (September 18, 2017) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - insufficient funds at filing]

M-O

Ex parte Maeda, No. 2008-006267 (July 22, 2009) [35 U.S.C. § 102 - inherency - proof properties are not inherent]
Ex parte Maeda, No. 2010-009814 (October 23, 2012) (designated October 15, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - rationales - design choice]
Ex parte Mathias, No. 2005-1851 (August 19, 2005) [Non-functional descriptive material - broadcast television content]
Ex parte May, No. 2006-1776 (April 30, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 102 - qualification as § 102(e) prior art]
Ex parte McBrearty, No. 2007-1340 (July 27, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - rationales - finite solutions]
Ex parte McCann, No. 2008-0785 (May 29, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - secondary considerations - commercial success, long-felt need]
Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (September 11, 2014) [AIA - Multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution – prior petition]
Ex parte Moon, No. 2008-005829 (July 22, 2009) [Claim constructions - construe in light of Specification]
Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 (January 30, 2013) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - "served with a complaint"]

Nagaraj v. Rickerby, Int. 104,817, Paper 51 (December 5, 2002) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - motions in limine]
Noelle v. Armitage, Int. 104,724 Paper 89 (May 15, 2003) and Paper 92 (July 3, 2008) [Interferences - procedure - circumstances when appropriate to proceed to priority phase]
Noelle v. Armitage, Int. 104,724, Paper 33 (April 26, 2002) [Interferences - procedure - stay of interference]
Noelle v. Lederman, Int. 104,415, Paper 135 (October 19, 2001) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - one-way distinctiveness]

Ex parte Olson, No. 2017-006489 (March 25, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 – statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
Ondeyka v. Shelley, Int. 104,709, Paper 14 (July 24, 2001) [Interferences - jurisdiction - expired patent]

P-R

Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc., IPR2025-00464, -00465, -00466, Paper 12 (July 16, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Declining to discretionarily deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated apparent material error by the Office during examination where the Examiner found priority to a provisional application despite earlier PTAB decisions of related patents reaching a contrary conclusion]
Panduit Corp. v. ADC Telecomms, No. 2011-003296 (February 24, 2012) [Inter partes reexam - jurisdiction]
Ex parte POD-NERS, L.L.C., No. 2007-3938 (April 29, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - enablement, undue experimentation; indefiniteness, scope]
Ex parte Porro, No. 2008-0184 (March 11, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - written description - species-genus]
Perego v. Drehmel, Int. 105,467, Paper 63 (March 9, 2007) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - evidence submitted in response to objection]
Preputnick v. Provencher, Int. 104,693, Paper 60 (2002) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - written description - expert testimony]
Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp., Case IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (July 8, 2014) [35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution - prosecution activity]
PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., Case IPR2019-01042, Paper 10 (October 31, 2019) (designated: March 24, 2020) [AIA § 325(d) – denying institution based on prosecution activity]

Rabbani v. Notomi, Int. 105,427, Paper 145 (January 25, 2008) [Interferences - motions - motion vs. reply]
Ex parte Righi, No. 2007-0590 (July 25, 2007) [Obviousness - rationales - known elements; fewer than all references]
Rodriguez Rilo v Benedict, Int. 105,684 (RT), Paper 17 (March 23, 2009) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - procedure for showing]
Rohr v. McNulty, Int. 104,804, Paper 39 (March 6, 2003) [Interferences - procedure - adding claims to interference]
Rohrman v. Alt, Paper 21 (June 27, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - adding claims to interference]
Rose v. Frazer, Int. 104,773, Paper 23 (December 17, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - correcting a preliminary statement]
Rose v. Frazer, Int. 104,773, Paper 73 (March 29, 2002) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - motions in limine]
Rowells v. Vichinsky, Int. 105,518, Paper 19 (March 6, 2007) [Derivation - corroborated communication of conception]
Ryan v. Young, Int. 105,504, Paper 116 (March 4, 2008) [Interferences - general motion practice]

S-U

Ex parte Sami Chemicals and Extracts, LTD., 2007-3482 (February 2, 2009) [Ex parte - new grounds of rejection - claim construction]
Sanada v. Reynolds, Int. 105,029, Paper 21 (March 19, 2003) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - means-plus-function - functional claiming]
Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) [AIA § 314(a), instituting review – Fintiv factors weighed against exercising discretion to deny institution]
Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (§ III.C.1), IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) [AIA § 311(b) – determining, for purposes of institution, Petitioner made a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication]
Sattler Tech Corp. v. Humancentric Ventures, LLC, Case PGR2019-00030, Paper 9 (July 26, 2019) [AIA § 321 - instituting review, design patent, alleged lack of ornamentality]
Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg., Int. 104,311, Paper 292 (2002) [Interferences - inventorship]
Savant Techs. LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., IPR2025-00260, Paper 16 (June 12, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Declining to discretionarily deny institution of a second petition necessitated by Patent Owner's assertion in district court of additional claims after Petitioner filed its first IPR]
Ex parte Savescu,2018-003174 (April 1, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 - statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
Schaenzer v. Knight, Int. 105,058, Paper 41 (October 29, 2003) [Interferences - settlement - relief sought as part of settlement]
Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc. (§ II.A.i), Case IPR2016-00840, Paper 11 (October 6, 2016) [AIA § 311(b) – determining, for purposes of institution, Petitioner made a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication]
Sever v. Glickman, Int. 104,722, Paper 33 (November 6, 2001) [Interferences - fraud and inequitable conduct; derivation - conception]
Ex parte Shaw, 1997-3258 (December 19, 2005) [Issue preclusion - precluded by administrative adjudication]
Ex parte Shaw, 1997-3258 (May 21, 2004) [Issue preclusion - precluded by administrative adjudication]
Ex parte Smart, 2009-015036 (January 3, 2011)
Ex parte Smith, 2011-003337 (February 28, 2012) [Anticipation - picking and choosing; obviousness - secondary considerations - unexpected results]
Ex parte Smith, 2018-000064 (01 February 2019) (February 1, 2019) (designated: March 19, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 - statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
Spalding v. Hartsell, 104,699, Paper 92 (2002) [Anticipation - printed publication; interferences - motions - incorporation of arguments by reference]
Ex parte Spangler, 2018-003800 (February 20, 2019) (designated October 15, 2019) [Obviousness - rationales - design choice]
Ex parte Srinivasan, No. 2007-0512 (May 1, 2007)
Stiller v. Heid, 105,044, Paper 38 (September 16, 2003) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - legal standard]
Strelchenko v. Campbell, Int. 104,809, Paper 26 (June 10, 2002) [Interferences - jurisdiction - § 135 time bar]
Strelchenko v. University of Massachusetts, Int. 104,808, Paper 88 (March 18, 2003) [Interferences - jurisdiction - § 135 time bar]
Sullivan v. Bingel, Int. 104,818, Paper 73 (2003) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to decide patentability issues]
Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Nivagen Pharm., Inc., IPR2025-00893, Paper 18 (September 19, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Discretionarily denying institution where Petitioner takes a narrower claim construction position in district court and fails to explain why a broader construction is warranted in its Petition]

Ex parte Talkowski, 2012-002290 (May 24, 2013) [Obviousness - analogous art - two-step test]
Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025-01374, -01391, Paper 20 (May 12, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [AIA – Vacating notices granting institution and denying institution where Petitioner advances indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification for inconsistency with its Board position, and Petitioner’s post-institution conduct demonstrates that it is not using the IPR process as a district court alternative]
Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 (November 5, 2025) (designated: November 5, 2025) [AIA – a petitioner’s explanation that it could not argue indefiniteness in an IPR is insufficient to show why different claim construction positions are warranted in district court and at the Board] (Director Review decision)
Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00217, Paper 9 (June 13, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) [AIA - Declining to discretionarily deny institution where Patent Owner asserted and Petitioner challenged a large number of patents from different families involving diverse subject matter]
Thomas v. Pippin, Int. 105,801, Paper 99 (April 24, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - request to convert application to SIR; ministerial actions during appeal]
Thomas v. Pippin, Int. 105,801, Paper 97 (March 6, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - request to convert application to SIR; ministerial actions during appeal]
Ex parte Thompson, 2011-011620 (March 21, 2014) [obviousness analysis includes considering objective indicia of non-obviousness]
TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc., IPR2025-01485, Paper 13 (January 16, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [AIA – Discretionarily denying institution where Petitioner advances different claim construction positions in the petition and in district court and subsequently stipulates not to pursue the different claim construction in district court upon institution, because Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why the different claim constructions are warranted and the stipulation does not sufficiently reduce duplication or minimize potential for different outcomes]
Top Glory Trading Group Inc. v. Cole Haan LLC, IPR2025-01395, Paper 18 (January 12, 2026) (designated: January 12, 2026) [AIA – Declining to discretionarily deny institution based on a significant change in design patent law despite the patent owner’s settled expectations]
TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Paper 18, IPR2014-00293 (June 27, 2014) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - district court motion to amend; real parties in interest, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2) - “related” parties]
Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja, Int. 104,482, Papers 85 & 91 (2001) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]
Ex parte Tullis, 2006-0210 (May 17, 2006) [Ex parte - double patenting - obvious-type double patenting]

Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (December 14, 2016) [AIA - 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution, examination]
Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00702, Paper 13 (July 24, 2014) [AIA - 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution, prior petition]
University of New Mexico v. Fordham University, Int. 104,761, Paper 47 (April 2, 2002) [Interferences - procedure - disqualification of counsel]
University of Washington v. Eli Lilly & Co., Int. 104,733, Paper 45 (June 11, 2002) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]

V-Z

Ex parte Vegas Amusement, Inc., 2012-001010 (Dec 9, 2011) [Claim construction - broadest reasonable interpretation]

Wang v. Kovesdi, Paper 75 (January 30, 2003) [Interferences - procedure - correcting a preliminary statement]
Ex parte Wellerdieck, 2007-1119 (May 4, 2007) [Reissue - 35 U.S.C. § 251 - term]
Wertz v. Rose, Int. 104,421, Paper 39 (March 28, 2003) [Interferences - arbitration]
Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., 2013-008232 (October 30, 2013) [nexus, industry praise, commercial success, long-felt need, copying]
Wojciak v. Nishiyama, Int. 104,539, Paper 54 (February 23, 2001) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - cross-examination using an interpreter]
Wojciak v. Nishiyama, Int. 104,539, Paper 72 (June 4, 2001) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - hearsay]
Ex parte Wright, 2006-0003 (April 6, 2006) [commercial success, copying, long-felt need]

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00098, Paper 38 (January 15, 2026) (designated: January 16, 2026) [AIA § 312(a) – vacating and denying institution where Petitioner has not provided sufficient argument and evidence for the Office to determine whether Petitioner identified all RPIs] (Director Review decision)
Yurek v. Yamada, Paper 46 (2001) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]

ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (September 25, 2013) [AIA – multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution, prior petition; joinder, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) - deny institution where joinder denied]

Most files are in portable document format (PDF), which requires the use of a pdf reader.

Download Acrobat PDF Reader