• Kranos Corporation D/B/A Schutt Sports v. Riddell, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2017 · IPR2017-01530 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds under §325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented in an earlier petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “on behalf of the Director, may take into account whether, and reject a petition because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Because the 1530 Petition now before us presents substantially the same prior art, and substantially the same arguments, as asserted in the petition in IPR2016-01650 (see Ex. 3002) (the “1650 Petition”), we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and deny institution of a trial.” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,938,818
• Whole Space Industries Ltd. v. Zipshade Industrial (B.V.I.) Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01632 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–24 under § 325(d), finding the second petition relied on substantially the same prior art and arguments as the earlier petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “As set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Director, and by extension the Board, has broad discretion to deny a petition that raises substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office. That statutory provision provides as follows: In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added). As discussed above, the prior art and arguments in the Petition before us are the same or substantially the same as previously were presented to the Office in the ’488 Petition. The Petition before us challenges each claim that was denied inter partes review in the ’488 Petition. While there may be nuanced differences in stating how the same references from the First Petition are applied in the Second Petition, we determine such differences are insubstantial. The statute expressly establishes our discretion to consider whether the prior art and arguments are “substantially the same” in a first and second petition, and confers authority to reject a second petition on that basis. We considered all of the papers filed in both proceedings in exercising that discretion. We found that the prior art and arguments in the First and Second Petitions are “substantially the same” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 8

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,245,756
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2015 · IPR2015-00593 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments had been presented in a related proceeding.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Each of the grounds advanced in the instant Petition was previously considered by the Board in the related proceeding.4 See Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation, Case IPR2014-00809, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Oct. 24, 2014) (Paper 10). Although, Petitioner supports its Petition with a Declaration of a different witness (Ex. 1009) than relied on by Silicon Labs in the 4 The Petition at hand does not assert some of the grounds asserted in the related proceeding. related proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner that “the declaration is substantially identical to the [related proceeding’s] declaration.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Thus, we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” slip op. at 4

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,265,792

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.