Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 APRIL 2016

Precedent, Persuasion, And The PTAB

WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Contributor
WilmerHale

WilmerHale

WilmerHale's London office was established more than 40 years ago. With lawyers qualified in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from WilmerHale

In the first three years since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established post-grant proceedings, parties have filed thousands of covered business method reviews (CBMs) and inter partes reviews (IPRs), resulting in more than 700 final written decisions, thousands of orders, and tens of thousands of pages of written opinion from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

United StatesIntellectual Property

Co-authored by Jonathan R. Stroud*

In the first three years since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established post-grant proceedings, parties have filed thousands of covered business method reviews (CBMs) and inter partes reviews (IPRs), resulting in more than 700 final written decisions, thousands of orders, and tens of thousands of pages of written opinion from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).1 This deluge of decisions and information leads logically to questions about the relative weight of opinions and orders, their precedential value, and whether and how parties should cite to—or rely on—them. The purpose of this article is to explore the precedential value of PTAB decisions and how they might bind the PTAB and others in subsequent matters.

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