The USPTO has recently designated five PTAB decisions as “informative.” (I have also included the recent Western Digital decision as well).
- Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (Mar. 22, 2017) [construing “at least one of A and B” where A and B are categories]
- Ex parte Ditzik, 2018-000087 (Mar. 2, 2018) [examiner properly applied issue preclusion in a reissue application to reject claim amendments that lacked written description]
- Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case IPR2018-00242, Paper 9 (Feb. 27, 2018) [petition cannot skirt Section 315 time-limits by requesting joinder with earlier-filed petitions]
- Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022, Paper 55 (Aug. 7, 2013) [37 C.F.R. § 42.53(e) – foreign deposition guidelines]
- Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 (Jan. 19, 2018) [must show concrete harm before submitted information will be sealed]
- Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., Case IPR2018-00082, -00084, Paper 13 (Apr. 25, 2018) [Post-Aqua requirements for claim amendments during IPR]