Alphabetical listing of precedential decisions

 

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

 

A-C

A

B

C     

  • R.C. v. T.I., Int. 104, EEE, Paper 143 (Apr. 16, 1999) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - untimely request]
  • Ex parte Catan, 2007-0820 (July 3, 2007) [Obviousness - rationales - substitution]
  • Ex parte Catlin, 2007-3072 (Feb. 3, 2009) [means-plus-function - algorithm; indefiniteness]
  • Charlton v. Rosenstein, Int. 104,148, Paper 147 (May 22, 2000) [Interferences - three-judge vs. single-judge interlocutory decisions]
  • Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., Case IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 (Jan. 31, 2019) [AIA § 315(a)(1) – applying Click-to-Call to petitioner’s action and denying institution]
  • Code200, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00861 & IPR2022-00862, Paper 18 (Aug. 23, 2022) [AIA § 314(a), vacating decision denying institution – analysis of General Plastic factors relating to a second-filed petition when the first-filed petition was not evaluated on the merits] (sua sponte Director review decision)
  • CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (February 27, 2023) [AIA – ordering rehearing, vacating decision granting institution, and remanding proceeding to the Board; the Board must first address Fintiv factors 1-5, and should engage the compelling merits question only if that analysis favors discretionary denial; when addressing compelling merits, the Board must provide reasoning, beyond pointing to its analysis under the lower institution standard, to explain and support its determination, sufficient to allow for review of that decision] (sua sponte Director review decision)
  • Cromlish v. D.Y., Int. 104,289, Paper 65 (Nov. 21, 2000) [Interferences - best mode requirement]

 

D-F

D

E

 

F

  • Facebook Inc. v. Skky LLC. (§ II.B.2), Case CBM2016-00091, Paper 12 (Sept. 28, 2017) [Covered business method review eligibility, AIA § 18, pre-institution statutory disclaimer]
  • Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (July 21, 2014) (designated: July 10, 2019) [AIA § 316(a)(5), deposition conduct]
  • Ex parte Frye, 2009-006013 (Feb. 26, 2010) [ex parte appeals - jurisdictional issues - scope of review of Examiner’s decision]
  • Ex parte Fu, 2008-0601 (Mar. 31, 2008) [Obviousness - rationales - obvious to try species] 

G-I

G

H

  • Hillman v. Shyamala, Int. 104,436, Paper 50 (Apr. 25, 2000) [Interferences - priority - standards for proving]
  • Housey v. Berman, Int. 104,347, Paper 45 (Nov. 10, 1999) [Interferences - § 135 time bar]
  • Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, Case IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 (Jan. 8, 2019) (designated: Apr. 5, 2019) [AIA, procedure and standard for submitting new evidence on rehearing, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)]
  • Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (Paper 29) [AIA § 311(b), for purposes of institution, a petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that an asserted reference qualifies as a printed publication] (Precedential Opinion Panel decision)
  • Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, Case IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 (July 6, 2020) [AIA § 316(d), Board may raise a ground of unpatentability that a petitioner did not advance against substitute claims under certain rare circumstances] (Precedential Opinion Panel decision)

I

J-L

J

  • Ex parte Jellá, 2008-1619 (Nov. 3, 2008) [Obviousness – secondary considerations; nexus, commercial success]
  • Johnston v. Beachy, Int. 104,DDD, Paper 40 (Mar. 10, 1999) [Interferences – procedure; receipt of files by parties]

K

  • K-40 Elecs., LLC v. Escort, Inc., Case No. IPR2013-00203, Paper 34 (May 21, 2014) (designated: Mar. 18, 2019) [AIA, live testimony at oral argument]
  • Ex parte Kubin, 2007-0819 (May 31, 2007) [Obviousness - rationales - obvious to try; 35 U.S.C. § 112 - species-genus enablement]

L

 

M-O

M

  • B.M. v. H.G., Int. 104,CCC, Paper 34 (Apr. 26, 1999) [Interferences - procedure - extension of time]
  • Matsushima v. H.A., Int. 104,354, Paper 45 (May 2, 2000) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - additional discovery]
  • Ex parte McAward, 2015-006416 (Aug. 25, 2017) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - indefiniteness during prosecution; claim construction] 
  • Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007692 (May 8, 2013) [Patent eligibility - machine readable storage medium]
  • Ex parte Miyazaki, 2007-3300 (Nov. 19, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - indefiniteness - amenable to two or more constructions]
  • Ex parte Moncla, 2009-006448 (June 22, 2010) [Double patenting - premature to address provisional rejection]

N

  • G.N. v. S.W., Int. 104,VVV (Oct. 7, 2000) [Interferences - procedure - scope of count]
  • Nau v. Ohuchida, Int. 104,258 (Apr. 30, 1999) (Paper 62) [Interferences - motions - opportunity to respond]
  • Nau v. Ohuchida, Int. 104,258 (Apr. 14, 1999) (Paper 57) [Interferences - motions - admitting or denying facts]
  • Ex parte Nehls, 2007-1823 (Jan. 28, 2008) [§ 101 - utility - computer-based system for identifying nucleic acid sequence; non-functional descriptive material - nucleic acid sequence as input to computer program]
  • Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings Pty Ltd., Case IPR2020-01234, Paper 42 (Feb. 24, 2023) [AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 112, fifth paragraph – granting rehearing and modifying the Final Written Decision, addressing the treatment of multiple dependent claims]
  • Nevel v. Hoeller, Int. 104,025, Paper 65 (May 10, 2000) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - additional discovery]
  • NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., Case No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (Sept. 12, 2018) (designated: May 7, 2019) [AIA §§ 314(a), 325(d), deny institution – prior art previously considered, co-pending district court proceeding nearing completion]
  • NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (September 7, 2022) [AIA § 314(a), affirming decision denying rehearing – the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation related to Fintiv factor 4 is prior to the Board’s decision on institution] (sua sponte Director review decision)

O

  • OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 (October 4, 2022) [AIA – holding Petitioner’s conduct was an abuse of the inter partes review process, sanctioning Petitioner, and remanding for a determination of whether the petition, based only on the record before the Board prior to institution, presents a compelling, meritorious challenge] (sua sponte Director review decision)
  • Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited (§ II.B and II.C), Case IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (Oct. 16, 2019) (designated: March 24, 2020) [AIA §§ 314(a), 325(d) – declining to exercise § 325(d) discretion based on prosecution activity, or § 314(a) discretion, distinguishing NHK]

 

P-R

P

  • Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, Paper 102 (December 22, 2022) [AIA – holding Petitioner’s conduct was an abuse of the inter partes review process, sanctioning Petitioner, and determining whether the petition, based only on the record before the Board prior to institution, presents a compelling, meritorious challenge] (sua sponte Director review decision)
  • Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc. (§ II.E.3) IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) [AIA – clarifying the distinction between pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) and holding that the requirement in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), a reference patent’s claims must have written description support in its provisional application in order to be entitled to the filing date of the provisional application, does not apply to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)]
  • Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case No. IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 (Mar. 13, 2019) [AIA § 315(c), same party and issue joinder]
  • Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case No. IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (Feb. 13, 2019) [AIA §§ 312(a)(2), 315(b), 322(a)(2) – RPI, bar due to patent owner’s action - post-institution update to Mandatory Notices to add RPI]

Q

  • Ex parte Quist, 2008-001183 (June 2, 2010) [Obviousness - secondary considerations - nexus, declaration testimony; scope of rehearing]

R

 

S-U

S

  • A.S. v. B.R., Int. 104,AAA, Paper 10 (Dec. 2, 1998) [Interferences - procedure - ex parte communications]
  • Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg., Int. 104,311 (Paper 165) (May 25, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - scope of count]
  • Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg., Int. 104,311 (Paper 147) (Jan. 9, 2001) [Interferences - jurisdiction - adding patent to an interference]
  • Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (Apr. 28, 2016) [Claim construction - conditional language]
  • SecureBuy LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp, Case CBM2014-00035, Paper 12 (Apr. 25, 2014) [AIA - bar due to petitioner’s action, 
    35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) - deny institution - prior complaints]
  • SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2020) (designated: Dec. 4, 2020) – [AIA § 312(a)(2), instituting review – no RPI analysis necessary at institution absent allegation of time bar or estoppel based on unnamed RPI]
  • Shiokawa v. Maienfisch, Int. 104,525, Paper 65 (Sept. 7, 2000) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - additional discovery]
  • Singh v. Brake, Int. 102,728, Paper 168 (Nov. 10, 1998) [Interferences - procedure - extension of time]
  • Ex parte Smith , 2007-1925 (June 25, 2007) [Anticipation - inherent capability; obviousness - rationales - substitution]
  • Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC (§ II.A), IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (Oct. 21, 2020) (designated: Dec. 17, 2020) [AIA § 314(a), instituting review – Fintiv analysis, district court proceeding stayed]
  • Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corporation (§ II.A), IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020) (designated: Dec. 17, 2020) [AIA § 314(a), instituting review – Fintiv analysis, Petitioner filed broad stipulation to limit grounds in district court]

T

U

 

V-Z

V

W

  • F.M.W. v. D.A.T., Int. 104,BBB, Paper 4 (Dec. 23, 1998) [Interferences - procedure - ex parte communications]
  • Waterman v. Birbaum, Int. 104,500, Paper 4 (Feb. 22, 2000) [Interferences - procedure - abandoned application]
  • Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp, Case CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 (May 14, 2015) [AIA - estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 325(e) - claim-by-claim application]
  • Ex parte Whalen II, 2007-4423 (July 23, 2008) [Anticipation - inherency - evidence and reasoning; obviousness - rationales - optimizing a variable]
  • Winter v. Fujita, Int. 104,283, Papers 73 & 74 (Nov. 16, 1999) [Interferences - jurisdiction - adding reissue application to an interference; interferences - motions - improper arguments in a reply; interferences - interference-in-fact - two-way patentability analysis]
  • Wolf v. Tomalia, Int. 104,274, Paper 23 (Apr. 13, 1999) [Interferences - jurisdiction - relationship with reexaminations]

X

  • Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (August 24, 2022) (designated: February 10, 2023) [AIA, denying institution – holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning]

Y

 

Z

These document require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

  Helpful  
 Not Helpful 

The USPTO is currently improving our content to better serve you. Can you describe the problem?
 Share
 Print