The PTAB designated two decisions as precedential this week (in
addition to several in previous weeks), both relevant to the
Board's discretion to deny review. These cases illustrate that
the PTO is in the process of designating precedential opinions on a
number of issues, in line with revised Standard Operating Procedure
2 for designating precedential and informative decisions. See
my previous posts on other recent precedential decisions
here and
here.
Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Prods., Inc.
addresses follow-on petitions. Follow-on or serial petitions
are regularly criticized by patent owners as harassment, requiring
them to defend their patent repeatedly. In 2017, the PTAB made
the General Plastic case precedential, where the Board
enumerated seven non-exhaustive factors it would consider when
deciding whether to allow follow-on petitions. In short, the
factors are: