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]
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. 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]
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]
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]
Ex parte Curry, No. 2005-0509 (June 30, 2005) [Non-functional descriptive material - data in database]

D-F

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]
Ex parte Fletcher, No. 2009-007416 (January 26, 2010) [Ex parte appeals - official notice, failure to traverse]
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]
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. 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

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]
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]

Ex parte Talkowski, 2012-002290 (May 24, 2013) [Obviousness - analogous art - two-step test]
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]
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]

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