Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 SEPTEMBER 2015

IPR Challenge Based On Applicant Admitted Prior Art May Fail To Comply With Statutory Requirements

Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Duane Morris LLP

The petition was brought by KingBright Electronics Company and SunLED Corporation to challenge Claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (the '175 Patent).

United StatesIntellectual Property

A three-member panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that an expert declaration which explains the significance of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) is not "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications" as required by 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Kingbright Elec. Co. et al. v. Cree, Inc., IPR2015-00741, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 20, 2015). Accordingly, the panel denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition that asserted seven grounds of invalidity with each ground relying at least in part on such a declaration and AAPA. This decision has not been designated informative or representative.

The petition was brought by KingBright Electronics Company and SunLED Corporation to challenge Claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (the '175 Patent). The petition raised seven grounds of invalidity under § 103(a), which the panel summarized in their institution decision as follows:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from