Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

PTAB Denies A Second IPR Petition Based On Estoppel And Redundancy

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") denied a petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) trial filed by the Petitioner, Praxair Distribution, Inc. ("Praxair") and NOxBOX Limited ("NOxBOX") based on estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) (reproduced below).

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") denied a petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) trial filed by the Petitioner, Praxair Distribution, Inc. ("Praxair") and NOxBOX Limited ("NOxBOX") based on estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) (reproduced below).  Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2016-00781, Paper 10 (PTAB August 25, 2016) (the "second IPR petition").  The Board further exercised its discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (reproduced below) in denying the petition.  Id. 

35 U.S.C. § 315(e)  Proceedings before the office. The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.

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