PTAB Precedential Decision Recap

by | Sep 27, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics

The PTAB has been very active in designating decisions precedential and informative in 2019.  Here’s a recap of designations so far:

Real parties in interest, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2)

Requirements of Petition, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)

  • Informative – Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., Case IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (Mar. 6, 2019) [AIA §§ 312(a)(3), 314(a), deny institution – failure to identify grounds with particularity]

Institution, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)

  • Precedential – Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00064, -00065, -00085, Paper 10 (May 1, 2019) [AIA § 314(a), deny institution – General Plastic factor 1 applies to joined Petitioner]
  • Precedential – Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084, Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) [deny institution – General Plastic factors apply to different Petitioner]
  • Informative – Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., Case IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (Mar. 6, 2019) [AIA §§ 312(a)(3), 314(a), deny institution – failure to identify grounds with particularity]
  • Informative – Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., Case IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (Nov. 7, 2018) [insufficient number of proposed grounds/challenges to claims meet reasonable likelihood standard]
  • Informative – Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (Jan. 24, 2019) [insufficient number of proposed grounds/challenges to claims meet reasonable likelihood standard]

Bar due to petitioner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)

Bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)

  • Precedential – Infiltrator Water Techs., LLC, v. Presby Patent Trust, Case IPR2018-00224, Paper 25 (Oct. 1, 2018) [AIA § 315(b) – applying Click-to-Call to a complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction]
  • Precedential – GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., Case IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 (Aug. 23, 2019) [AIA § 315(b), one-year time bar triggered after the service of a complaint, regardless of whether the serving party lacked standing to sue or the pleading was otherwise deficient]
  • Precedential – Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (Feb. 13, 2019)  [AIA §§ 312(a)(2), 315(b), post-institution update to Mandatory Notices to add RPI]
  • Precedential – Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., Case IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 (Jan. 24, 2019) [AIA §§ 312(a)(2), 315(b), terminating proceeding where Petition failed to name time-barred RPI and privy

Joinder, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)

Motions to amend, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)

Oral argument, 37 C.F.R. § 42.70

Request for rehearing, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)

The following two tabs change content below.
My LinkedIn profile

Matthew Johnson

Partner at Jones Day
Matt Johnson is one of the Firm's primary contacts on practice before the PTAB. Currently co-chairing the Firm's PTAB subpractice and involved in proceedings at the Board since the first day of their availability in September 2012, Matt regularly represents clients as both petitioners and patent owners at the Board. He further works as an advocate for clients in appeals from Board proceedings at the Federal Circuit.