Source: https://www.globalipmatters.com/2017/10/09/general-plastic-industrial-co-v-canon-kabushiki-kaisha-ptab-explains-factors-considers-for-follow-on-petitions
Timestamp: 2018-03-20 01:42:29
Document Index: 648722461

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 314', '§ 325', '§ 314', '§ 325', '§ 314', '§ 42']

General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha: PTAB Explains Factors for Follow-On Petitions | Global IP Matters
Home > United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) > Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) > General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha: PTAB Explains Factors for Follow-On Petitions
Notably, the Board found that the new grounds presented in the follow-on petitions attempted to cure deficiencies previously identified in the earlier institution denials and that the Petitioner had also enjoyed the opportunity to study the Patent Owner’s preliminary responses to the initial petitions. The Board rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Board had acted contrary to the legislative purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and misapplied the NVIDIA factors to create an improper de facto bar against all follow-on petitions filed after a decision on a first-filed petition. The Petitioner’s position that the Board should have relied exclusively on § 325(d) and had rendered that section “superfluous or meaningless” by the Board’s application of § 314(a) and the NVIDIA factors was also found unpersuasive. The Board stated that this case involved “sequential attacks” on the same claims, “with the opportunity [for the Petitioner] to morph positions along the way,” which was inequitable to the Patent Owner. The Board also highlighted the discretionary nature of both § 325(d) as well as any decision to institute an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Ultimately, the Board indicated that it was preventing a situation where “follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.”
Tags: inter partes review, IPR, post-grant review proceedings, PTAB, USPTO