{"id":928,"date":"2017-10-31T15:31:49","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T20:31:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/63.247.142.118\/?p=928"},"modified":"2019-06-03T16:48:55","modified_gmt":"2019-06-03T21:48:55","slug":"ptab-designates-inter-partes-review-decisions-as-precedential-informative","status":"publish","type":"ip_blog","link":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/ip_blog\/ptab-designates-inter-partes-review-decisions-as-precedential-informative\/","title":{"rendered":"PTAB DESIGNATES INTER PARTES REVIEW DECISIONS AS PRECEDENTIAL\/INFORMATIVE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated one inter partes <\/em>review decision as precedential and three inter partes <\/em>review decisions as informative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The precedential decision is General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha<\/em><\/strong>, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19), Section II.B.4.i.<\/strong><\/a>  The decision discusses how PTAB decides whether to permit \u201cfollow-on\u201d petitions (that is, petitions filed for inter partes<\/em> review of a patent after the filing of an initial petition for inter partes<\/em> review of the same patent) and PTAB\u2019s authority to deny such petitions under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 314<\/strong><\/a>. The decision also discusses the use of expanded panels by PTAB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The three informative decisions address different aspects of how PTAB addresses whether to institute an IPR under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 325(d)<\/strong><\/a> based on whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. As summarized by the USPTO in its October 24 bulletin, the informative decisions address the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n