Alphabetical listing of informative decisions

This is an alphabetical listing of informative decisions. For a list of precedential and informative decisions by topic, click here.

 

A-C

A

B

  • Bamberger v. Cheruvu, Int. 103, 844 (February 18, 1998) (Paper 409) [Interferences - motions - burdens of proof]
  • Barany v. McGall, Int. 105,351 (February 6, 2009) (Paper 59) [Interference - procedure - circumstances when appropriate to proceed to priority phase]
  • Ex parte Batteux, 2007-0622 (March 27, 2007) [Anticipation - intended treatment]
  • Ex parte Baxter International, Inc., 2009-006493 (March 18, 2010) [Considering expert testimony]
  • Ex parte Bayer Cropscience, LP, 2011-005039 (May 16, 2011) [Anticipation - in preamble of method claim]
  • Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Paper 8, No. IPR2017-01587 (December 15, 2017) (designated: August 2, 2019) [AIA § 325(d) - delineating discretionary factors]
  • Ex parte Beineke, 2007-4215 (July 31, 2008) [Plant patents - 35 U.S.C. § 161 - “uncultivated state”]
  • Ex parte Beineke, 2007-3882 (July 30, 2008) [Plant patents - 35 U.S.C. § 161 - “uncultivated state”]
  • Ex parte Belinne, 2009-004693 (August 10, 2009) [Appellant’s response to rejection - burden to identify error]
  • Belkin International, Inc v. Optimumpath, LLC., 2011-003697 (March 30, 2011) [Inter partes reexam - SNQ determination not appealable]
  • Ex parte Bobrowski, 2008-0580 (March 31, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - indefiniteness - In re Steele]
  • Ex parte Boer, 2009-010590 (May, 21, 2012) [Ex parte appeals - petitionable not appealable matters]
  • Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (October 15, 2001) (Paper 29) [Interferences - cross-examination in a foreign country]
  • Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (December 18, 2001) (Paper 54) [Interferences - procedure - motion to amend]
  • Bronshtein v. Roser, Int. 104,727 (January 2, 2002) (Paper 55) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]

C

D-F

D

  • Ex parte Daniels, No. 2008-0568 (May 20, 2009) (May 20, 2009) [evaluating sufficiency of affidavit]
  • Ex parte Dart, No. 2007-1325 (August 22, 2007) [Obviousness - analogous art, pertinent to same problem - rationales, predictable results]
  • DeBoer v. Gordon, Int. 105,004, Paper 18 (February 3, 2003) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]
  • Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case No. IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (January 24, 2019) (designated: April 5, 2019) [AIA § 314(a), insufficient number of proposed grounds/challenges to claims meet reasonable likelihood standard]
  • Dionne v. Liotta, Int. 104,333, Paper 119 (October 31, 2001) [Obviousness – person of ordinary skill in the art, evidence in support]
  • Ex parte Ditzik, No. 2018-000087 (March 2, 2018) [Issue preclusion - precluded by prior district court adjudication]
  • Dung v. Buehler, Int. 105,893, Paper 121 (July 23, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - late introduction of evidence]

E

  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Cameron, Int. 104,104, Paper 18 (October 31, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - request for adverse judgment]
  • Ellsworth v. Moore, No. Int. 104,528, Paper 54 (November 20, 2001) [Interferences - inventorship]

F

  • Ex parte Fautz, No. 2019-000106 (May 15, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [§ 101, statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
  • Ex parte Fletcher, No. 2009-007416 (January 26, 2010) [Ex parte appeals - official notice, failure to traverse]
  • Ex parte Frenk, No. 2009-005654 (June 19, 2009) [Claim construction - construing “substantially”]
  • Furman v. Cheng, Int. 104,523, Paper 58 (May 11, 2001) [Interferences - priority - procedure for showing]

G-I

G

  • Garmin Int'l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013) [AIA - discovery, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5), factors]
  • General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Paper 19, No. IPR2016-01357 (September 6, 2017) [Expanded panels, reasons for expansion]
  • Genise v. Desautels, Int. 104,834 (May 12, 2003) Paper 66 [Interferences - written decision following bench ruling]
  • Gibson v. Sturman, Int. 105,016 (2002) Papers 42 & 43 [Interferences - procedure - extension of time]
  • Ex parte Givens, No. 2009-003414 (August 6, 2009) [Claim construction - construe in light of specification]
  • Glaxco Wellcome, Inc. v. Cabilly, Int. 104,532 (April 30, 2001) [Interferences - motions - prima facie case]
  • Ex parte Gleave, No. 2005-2447 (January 31, 2006) [35 U.S.C. § 112, written description - examiner burden]
  • Gregory v. Tsui, Int. 104,228 (January 4, 2002) Paper 100, aff'd mem., No. 02-1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (January 4, 2002) [Interferences - analysis of priority; § 102(g) abandon, suppress, or conceal]
  • Guthrie v. Espiau, Int. 105,393 (April 18, 2007) Paper 94 [Interferences – amending priority statement; derivation, raising in priority statement]

H

I

J-L

J

K

  • Karim v. Jobson, Int. 105,376, Paper 99 (February 28, 2007) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to decide patentability issues]
  • Kaufman v. Talieh, Int. 105,233, Paper 23 (November 19, 2004) [Interferences - settlement - actions construed to be request for adverse judgment]
  • Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (December 15, 2016) (designated March 21, 2018) [AIA - multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution - examination]
  • Khavari v. D.T., Int. 104,696, Paper 21 (2001) [Interferences - motions - untimely and argumentative motions list]
  • Ex parte Kim, No. 2007-3980 (May 29, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 112 – indefiniteness - lack of specification guidance]
  • Ex parte Kimizuka, No. 2018-001081 (May 15, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 – statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
  • Kokusai Electric Corporation v. ASM IP Holding B.V., Case IPR2018-01151, Paper 38 (August 20, 2019) [granting joint motion to terminate, not deciding motion to amend]
  • Kopf-Sill v. Yager, Int. 104,718, Paper 81 (March 11, 2002) [Interferences - motions - untimely motions]
  • Ex parte Kraus, No. 2005-0841, Paper 52 (September 21, 2006) [Reissue - recapture]
  • Ex parte Kraus, No. 2005-0841, Paper 50 (February 22, 2006) [Reissue - recapture]
  • Kundu v. Ragunathan, Int. 104,843, Paper 51 (October 18, 2002) [Interferences - priority - § 102(g) abandon, suppress, or conceal]

L

  • Lalonde v. Li, Int. 105,607, Paper 23 (March 19, 2008) [Interferences - motions - scope of motions list]
  • Ex parte Lazzara, No. 2007-0192 (November 13, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 112, indefiniteness - term of degree]
  • LeVeen v. Edwards, Int. 104,290, Paper 348 (April 23, 2002) [Interferences - motions - striking improper brief]
  • LeVeen v. Edwards, Int. 104,290, Paper 351 (2002) [Interferences - motions - untimely arguments]
  • Longi Green Energy Tech. Co., v. Hanwha Solutions Corp., Case IPR2019-01072, Paper 33 (August 18, 2020) [AIA, addressing remote hearings and demonstrative exhibits]
  • Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, Case No. IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (September 18, 2017) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - insufficient funds at filing] 

M-O

M

  • Ex parte Maeda, No. 2008-006267 (July 22, 2009) [35 U.S.C. § 102 - inherency - proof properties are not inherent]
  • Ex parte Maeda, No. 2010-009814 (October 23, 2012) (designated October 15, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - rationales - design choice]
  • Ex parte Mathias, No. 2005-1851 (August 19, 2005) [Non-functional descriptive material - broadcast television content]
  • Ex parte May, No. 2006-1776 (April 30, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 102 - qualification as § 102(e) prior art]
  • Ex parte McBrearty, No. 2007-1340 (July 27, 2007) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - rationales - finite solutions]
  • Ex parte McCann, No. 2008-0785 (May 29, 2008) [35 U.S.C. § 103 - secondary considerations - commercial success, long-felt need]
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (September 11, 2014) [AIA - Multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution – prior petition]
  • Ex parte Moon, No. 2008-005829 (July 22, 2009) [Claim constructions - construe in light of Specification]
  • Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 (January 30, 2013) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - "served with a complaint"]

N

  • Nagaraj v. Rickerby, Int. 104,817, Paper 51 (December 5, 2002) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - motions in limine]
  • Noelle v. Armitage, Int. 104,724 Paper 89 (May 15, 2003) and Paper 92 (July 3, 2008) [Interferences - procedure - circumstances when appropriate to proceed to priority phase]
  • Noelle v. Armitage, Int. 104,724, Paper 33 (April 26, 2002) [Interferences - procedure - stay of interference]
  • Noelle v. Lederman, Int. 104,415, Paper 135 (October 19, 2001) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - one-way distinctiveness]

O

  • Ex parte Olson, No. 2017-006489 (March 25, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 – statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
  • Ondeyka v. Shelley, Int. 104,709, Paper 14 (July 24, 2001) [Interferences - jurisdiction - expired patent]

P-R

P

Q

 

R

  • Rabbani v. Notomi, Int. 105,427, Paper 145 (January 25, 2008) [Interferences - motions - motion vs. reply]
  • Ex parte Righi, No. 2007-0590 (July 25, 2007) [Obviousness - rationales - known elements; fewer than all references]
  • Rodriguez Rilo v Benedict, Int. 105,684 (RT), Paper 17 (March 23, 2009) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - procedure for showing]
  • Rohr v. McNulty, Int. 104,804, Paper 39 (March 6, 2003) [Interferences - procedure - adding claims to interference]
  • Rohrman v. Alt, Paper 21 (June 27, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - adding claims to interference]
  • Rose v. Frazer, Int. 104,773, Paper 23 (December 17, 2001) [Interferences - procedure - correcting a preliminary statement]
  • Rose v. Frazer, Int. 104,773, Paper 73 (March 29, 2002) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - motions in limine]
  • Rowells v. Vichinsky, Int. 105,518, Paper 19 (March 6, 2007) [Derivation - corroborated communication of conception]
  • Ryan v. Young, Int. 105,504, Paper 116 (March 4, 2008) [Interferences - general motion practice]

S-U

S

  • Ex parte Sami Chemicals and Extracts, LTD., 2007-3482 (February 2, 2009) [Ex parte - new grounds of rejection - claim construction]
  • Sanada v. Reynolds, Int. 105,029, Paper 21 (March 19, 2003) [35 U.S.C. § 112 - means-plus-function - functional claiming]
  • Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) [AIA § 314(a), instituting review – Fintiv factors weighed against exercising discretion to deny institution]
  • Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (§ III.C.1), IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) [AIA § 311(b) – determining, for purposes of institution, Petitioner made a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication]
  • Sattler Tech Corp. v. Humancentric Ventures, LLC, Case PGR2019-00030, Paper 9 (July 26, 2019) [AIA § 321 - instituting review, design patent, alleged lack of ornamentality]
  • Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg., Int. 104,311, Paper 292 (2002) [Interferences - inventorship]
  • Ex parte Savescu,2018-003174 (April 1, 2019) (designated July 1, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 - statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
  • Schaenzer v. Knight, Int. 105,058, Paper 41 (October 29, 2003) [Interferences - settlement - relief sought as part of settlement]
  • Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc. (§ II.A.i), Case IPR2016-00840, Paper 11 (October 6, 2016) [AIA § 311(b) – determining, for purposes of institution, Petitioner made a sufficient showing that a reference qualifies as a printed publication]
  • Sever v. Glickman, Int. 104,722, Paper 33 (November 6, 2001) [Interferences - fraud and inequitable conduct; derivation - conception]
  • Ex parte Shaw, 1997-3258 (December 19, 2005) [Issue preclusion - precluded by administrative adjudication]
  • Ex parte Shaw, 1997-3258 (May 21, 2004) [Issue preclusion - precluded by administrative adjudication]
  • Ex parte Smart, 2009-015036 (January 3, 2011)
  • Ex parte Smith, 2011-003337 (February 28, 2012) [Anticipation - picking and choosing; obviousness - secondary considerations - unexpected results]
  • Ex parte Smith, 2018-000064 (01 February 2019) (February 1, 2019) (designated: March 19, 2019) [35 U.S.C. § 101 - statutory subject matter - applying 2019 revised guidance]
  • Spalding v. Hartsell, 104,699, Paper 92 (2002) [Anticipation - printed publication; interferences - motions - incorporation of arguments by reference] 
  • Ex parte Spangler, 2018-003800 (February 20, 2019) (designated October 15, 2019) [Obviousness - rationales - design choice]
  • Ex parte Srinivasan, No. 2007-0512 (May 1, 2007)
  • Stiller v. Heid, 105,044, Paper 38 (September 16, 2003) [Interferences - interference-in-fact - legal standard]
  • Strelchenko v. Campbell, Int. 104,809, Paper 26 (June 10, 2002) [Interferences - jurisdiction - § 135 time bar]
  • Strelchenko v. University of Massachusetts, Int. 104,808, Paper 88 (March 18, 2003) [Interferences - jurisdiction - § 135 time bar]
  • Sullivan v. Bingel, Int. 104,818, Paper 73 (2003) [Interferences - jurisdiction - discretion to decide patentability issues]

T

  • Ex parte Talkowski, 2012-002290 (May 24, 2013) [Obviousness - analogous art - two-step test]
  • Thomas v. Pippin, Int. 105,801, Paper 99 (April 24, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - request to convert application to SIR; ministerial actions during appeal]
  • Thomas v. Pippin, Int. 105,801, Paper 97 (March 6, 2013) [Interferences - procedure - request to convert application to SIR; ministerial actions during appeal]
  • Ex parte Thompson, 2011-011620 (March 21, 2014) [obviousness analysis includes considering objective indicia of non-obviousness]
  • TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Paper 18, IPR2014-00293 (June 27, 2014) [AIA - bar due to patent owner’s action, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) - district court motion to amend; real parties in interest, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2) - “related” parties]
  • Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja, Int. 104,482, Papers 85 & 91 (2001) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]
  • Ex parte Tullis, 2006-0210 (May 17, 2006) [Ex parte - double patenting - obvious-type double patenting]

U

V-Z

V

W

  • Wang v. Kovesdi, Paper 75 (January 30, 2003) [Interferences - procedure - correcting a preliminary statement]
  • Ex parte Wellerdieck, 2007-1119 (May 4, 2007) [Reissue - 35 U.S.C. § 251 - term]
  • Wertz v. Rose, Int. 104,421, Paper 39 (March 28, 2003) [Interferences - arbitration]
  • Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., 2013-008232 (October 30, 2013) [nexus, industry praise, commercial success, long-felt need, copying]
  • Wojciak v. Nishiyama, Int. 104,539, Paper 54 (February 23, 2001) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - cross-examination using an interpreter]
  • Wojciak v. Nishiyama, Int. 104,539, Paper 72 (June 4, 2001) [Interferences - evidence/discovery - hearsay]
  • Ex parte Wright, 2006-0003 (April 6, 2006) [commercial success, copying, long-felt need]

X

 

Y

  • Yurek v. Yamada, Paper 46 (2001) [Interferences - analysis of whether interference-in-fact]

Z

  • ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (September 25, 2013) [AIA – multiple proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) - deny institution, prior petition; joinder, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) - deny institution where joinder denied]

Most files are in portable document format (PDF), which requires the use of a pdf reader.

Download Acrobat PDF Reader

share Share this page     print Print this page
Additional information  about this page