Source: https://www.bpla.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=1176527&group=
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:44:40+00:00

Document:
This will be a brown bag lunch meeting.
This meeting will include a discussion of Wirtgen America Inc. et al. v. Caterpillar Paving Products Inc., IPR2018-01201, and NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752. In Caterpillar and NHK, the two Boards reached opposite conclusions when exercising their discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular, the NHK Board noted that the consideration of the same prior art references in a parallel proceeding and the advanced state of the parallel proceeding weighed in favor of denying the petition under § 314(a). In contrast, the Caterpillar Board declined to exercise its discretion under § 314(a) given similar facts. We will also briefly discuss how previously asserted art is treated under § 325(d) and the interplay between § 325(d) and § 314(a).
Please read at least the institution decisions in Caterpillar and NHK. For reference, please also find links to the 2018 Revised Trial Practice Guide (Section II.D.2) and institution decisions in General Plastics , NetApp v. Realtime Data, and Juniper Networks (for a discussion of 325(d) factors).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 314
 § 314
 § 314
 § 325
 § 325
 § 314
 v.