PTAB designates seven IPR decisions as “informative”
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

PTAB designates seven IPR decisions as “informative”


The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has designated seven of its decisions rendered in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings as “informative”


In each decision, the PTAB denied institution of an IPR under 35 USC § 325(d), which permits the Director to take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented.

The seven decisions are:

Medtronic, Inc v Nuvasive Inc., Paper 8, No. IPR2014-00487 (September 11 2014)

Unified Patents Inc v PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, Paper 13, No. IPR2014-00702 (July 24 2014)

Prism Pharma Co v Choongwae Pharma Corp., Paper 14, No. IPR2014-00315 (July 8 2014)

Unilever, Inc v Procter & Gamble Co., Paper 17, No. IPR2014-00506 (July 7 2014)

Medtronic, Inc v Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., Paper 17, No. IPR2014-00436 (June 19 2014)

Intelligent Bio-Systems Inc. v Illumina Cambridge Limited, Paper 19, No. IPR2013-00324 (November 21 2013)

ZTE Corp v ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Paper 12, No. IPR2013-00454 (25 September 25 2013)

Decisions designated as "informative" can be viewed here.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article