by David Maiorana | Jan 21, 2018 | 325(d) issues
By Dave Maiorana By now, most PTAB practitioners are familiar with 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which gives the Board the authority to deny institution of a post-grant proceeding because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the...
by Cary Miller | Jan 5, 2018 | 325(d) issues
By Bing Liang, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. We have published other blog postings relating to 35 U.S.C. §325(d), including a blog posting that addresses the PTAB’s October 24, 2017 notice designating three of its decisions as informative (here). Recently, the PTAB...
by Geoffrey Gavin | Dec 21, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Geoffrey Gavin In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...
by Joe Sauer | Nov 7, 2017 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
by Seth M. Bostrom and Joseph M. Sauer The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated as informative three cases involving discretionary denial of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We previously profiled the case of Hospira, Inc. v....
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 27, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira, Inc. v....
by Geoffrey Gavin | Sep 14, 2017 | 325(d) issues
By Geoffrey Gavin In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR proceedings. In a pair of IPR...
