December 3, 2021
Authored and Edited by Angeline L. Premraj; Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court held that the USPTO Director has the discretion to review decisions rendered by PTAB judges. United States v. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021). For the second time following that decision, the Acting USPTO Director has granted review of a Final Written Decision by the PTAB.
In Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-00733, Paper No. 94, Oren Technologies petitioned the Director for review of the PTAB’s final written decision determining that all claims of challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,440,785 are unpatentable as obvious in light of the prior art. Relying on Oren Techs., LLC v. Proppant Express Invs LLC, No. 2019-1778, 2021 WL 3120819 (Fed. Cir. 2021), in which the Federal Circuit found that the Board’s failure to address the evidence of commercial success amounted to legal error, Oren argued that the Board failed to properly weigh the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Id. at 7-8.
Persuaded by this argument, the Director granted review of the Board’s decision. Ultimately, the Director vacated and remanded the case to the Board to issue a new decision addressing Oren’s objective evidence of nonobviousness regarding the commercial success and industry praise relating to Oren’s marketed product embodying the claimed features.
Final Written Decision, non-obviousness, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Copyright © 2021 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe
November 19, 2026
Webinar
Articles
EPR Academy, Part 5 of 6: Special Considerations for Third-Party Requesters
October 14, 2026
Articles
Who Is a “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up the Video Privacy Protection Act
October 12, 2026
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
October 7, 2026
Articles
California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions
October 7, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.