Petitions

SORT CASES BY:

Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc., v. Gelgard, LLC

CASE SUMMARY:
CITING THE SAME PRIOR ART IN A PETITION AS AN INSTITUTED IPR MAY NOT RESULT IN INSTITUTION

Inter partes review, unlike inter partes reexamination which it replaced, is an adjudicative proceeding. The Board relies on the evidence submitted by the parties, and it is thus incumbent upon petitioners to present both argument and evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of the challenged claims. This is particularly true where the petitioner alleges a claimed feature is inherent in the prior art. Despite relying upon the same prior art with the same expert witness as another instituted IPR proceeding, the statements in the expert declaration were not identical and therefore petitioner in this case failed to establish the critical link between what the prior art explicitly taught and the claimed feature, which was alleged to be inherent in the prior art.

download case