直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB Designates Three New Informative Decisions

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.

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Contacts

Jason E. Stach
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6428
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP