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.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.