November 2, 2017
Authored and Edited by James D. Stein; Jason E. Stach
Last week the PTAB designated three new informative decisions on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), regarding arguments challenging a patent that the USPTO has previously considered. The USPTO provided the following descriptions of the decisions:
Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman, Case IPR2016-01571 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper 10)
In this decision, the Board denied institution of one ground under § 325(d) because the petitioner asserted an obviousness combination that included a reference the examiner considered during prosecution and a second reference that was cumulative of prior art that the examiner considered. The Board also declined to exercise discretion under § 325(d) with respect to a second asserted obviousness combination, where the examiner did not consider the asserted references during prosecution, and the references were not cumulative of the prior art the examiner considered during prosecution.
Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case IPR2017-00739 (PTAB July 27, 2017) (Paper 16)
In this decision, the Board denied institution under § 325(d) because the examiner considered during prosecution, and found persuasive, the same arguments the petitioner raised regarding the patent owner’s claim to priority. The Board concluded that the examiner’s previous priority determination was dispositive as to each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.
Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC, Case IPR2017-00777 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2017) (Paper 7)
In this decision, the Board denied institution under § 325(d) because (i) the examiner previously considered two of the asserted references—one reference was raised in a third-party submission that the examiner discussed in rejecting the claims and the other reference the examiner cited and applied throughout prosecution; and (ii) the two additional references upon which the petitioner relied were cumulative of prior art the examiner considered during prosecution.
We have seen a recent uptick in the number of decisions that the PTAB has designated as representative, informative, or precedential. Stay tuned to the AIA blog for updates as these events occur.
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Articles
Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions
March/April 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.