Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
+1 (702) 462-5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com
Twitter
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • PATENT
    • TRADEMARK
    • COPYRIGHT
    • LITIGATION
    • BUSINESS LAW
  • TEAM
  • NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

Blog

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions

April 19, 2020adminNewsNo Comments

PTAB designates two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative

Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Paper 6) (precedential)

This decision denies institution of an inter partes review based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), explaining that the Board uses a two-part framework for exercising discretion under § 325(d). After applying the framework, the Board determined that the Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art previously presented to the Office and that the Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner materially erred as to the patentability of challenged claims.

PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2019-01042 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2019) (Paper 10) (informative)

This decision denies institution of an inter partes review based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), where the Examiner twice rejected the challenged claims over the same combination of references in the same manner the Petitioner proposed, and the Petitioner failed to show examiner error.

Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited, IPR2019-00975 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) (Paper 15) (precedential as to sections II.B and II.C)

This decision to institute declines to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after determining that the cited art is not substantially the same as the art considered during prosecution and that the Examiner erred in not considering the art during prosecution. The decision also declines to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), distinguishing NHK Spring Co. v. IntriPlex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), because no trial date had been set in the co-pending district court case, and the IPR would not be duplicative of the district court consideration of validity.

admin
Previous Post Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions Next Post USPTO Rule for In Person Interviews, Hearings and Meetings – Corona Virus

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • December 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • December 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014

Every Person Who Walks Through Our Door Is
Important To Us

Request Consultatıon
Our Expertises

º Patent
º Trademark
º Copyright
º Litigation Srv.
º Business Law

USA

1540 West Warm Springs Road
Suite 100
Henderson, NV 89014
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

233 S. Wacker Drive
44th Floor, #57
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

EUROPE

Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Bulvarı,
5387.Cadde Beytepe, 06800,
Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

CHINA

Room C503 5/F, SCE Building No:212, Gaoqi Nanwu Road, Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, China

HOME PAGE

SITE MAP

CONTACT

© 2021 | bayramoglu-legal.com | Designed by ANL Creative