文章链接：PTAB designates two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative

先例1： 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 d on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), explaining that the Board uses a two-part work for exercising discretion under § 325(d). After applying the work, 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.

根据 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)规定，PTAB拒绝上述案件institution的无效请求，在该规定下该案提出two-part work<span font-size:18px;background-color:#ffffff;"="" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">两部分框架原则：1）是否先前已经提交相同或者实质相同的现有技术或者相同或基本相同的论点论据给PTAB. 符合第1点条件情况下，PTAB有权拒绝审理该异议案件。但是若异议人能充分证明2）审查机关PTAB的审查官对所评估的现有技术有重大误解或没有正确引用的情况下，PTAB会继续审理异议案件。上诉案件满足了******部分条件，且请求人也未提供PTAB审查错误证明，因此驳回了该案无效请求。

Informative参考案例2：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 d 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.

上诉判例PTAB认为相同或实质相同的现有技术和论述都已经在之前审查过程中提出，也未能证明审查有误，因此驳回了该案无效请求。

先例3：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.

PTAB决定接受上诉专利无效案件审理，审查员查核本案专利的审查历史，认为异议理由中的现有技术有部分未被审理员考量过，现有技术与之前审查过程中不是实质相同的，因此不足以让PTAB拒绝审理该案，且根据103判断证明该专利异议人具有至少一项范围有被撤销的合理胜诉的可能性（原文：reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition）

版权归Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC 所有，转载请注明出处，侵权必究。