In B/E Aerospace, Inc. v MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC, the PTAB decided that testimonial evidence submitted in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, which was created for related litigation, was “new” testimonial evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c). IPR2014-01510, Paper
In In re Cuozzo, the Federal Circuit held, in a 2-1 opinion, that decisions of the PTAB to institute an IPR are not appealable and confirmed the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard for claim construction proceedings in
In Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., the PTAB vacated its institution decision and terminated the IPR because the petition failed to identify all real parties in interest. IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 (Jan. 6, 2015).
35
In the Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc. cases, the PTAB was presented with motions to amend the claims of the patents at issue. The PTAB, in granting the motions in part, discussed its rationale and provided guidance
In three recent decisions, the CAFC addressed whether the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR is appealable.
For an IPR petition to be instituted, it must show a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least