by Matthew Johnson | Sep 11, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Matt Johnson and Jack Graves— The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had previously...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 18, 2023 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News
By Mike Lavine, Aska Fujimori-Smith,* Jetta Cook, and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently denied inter partes review (IPR) of an electrocardiography monitor patent under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding that the same or...
by David Maiorana | May 1, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News
By David Linden, Dave Maiorana, and Marc Blackman – Director Vidal recently vacated a decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) to allow Google, the Petitioner, to brief whether discretionary denial was warranted under Section 325(d) in view...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 5, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PGR, Trial Institution
By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of a post-grant review and remanded the case for further proceedings. The petitioner challenged claims 1–27 of the ’274 patent under 35 U.S.C....
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 4, 2022 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News
By Ibrahim Ijaz,* Evan Jones, and Matt Johnson – On July 6, 2022, a panel of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) administrative patent judges granted institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue...
by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2022 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News
By Haytham Soliman and Matt Johnson – The Board denied post grant review in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after applying the Advanced Bionics[1] framework as informed by the factors outlined in Becton.[2] ...
