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)
  • 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]
  • Johnston v. Beachy, Int. 104,286, Paper 200 (July 30, 2001) [Interference]

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]
  • 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

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

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