§ 1.181 seeking dismissal, and arguing that Section 325(d) applies equally to ex parte reexamination and should be exercised. In response, Vivint petitioned the Office under 37 C.F.R. For the other questions, addressed arguments made by the PTAB in its denials of the IPRs by replacing an old reference with a new one, and the USPTO ultimately ordered reexamination for all claims of the patent, since it found that had “raised substantial new questions of patentability.” Two of the four questions of patentability it presented came directly from one of the denied IPR petitions, and in many respects “copied, almost word for word,” that petition. However, returned to the USPTO more than one year later to request ex parte reexamination of all claims of the ‘513 patent. The PTAB denied institution on several grounds, and in particular denied one of the petitions on the basis that it was “an example of ‘undesirable, incremental petitioning.’” The denial reasoned that “allowing similar, serial challenges to the same patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and frustration of Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,” and invoked the PTAB’s discretion to discourage such petitioning by denying institution. 6,717,513, which was the subject of three of the 14 IPRs filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) following Vivint’s 2015 suit against it for patent infringement. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to grant the reexamination request after it had denied the IPR under 35 U.S.C. In so ruling, the CAFC said that it was “arbitrary and capricious” and an abuse of discretion for the U.S. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Moore. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled today in a precedential opinion that, which was denied institution on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions it filed against patents owned by Vivint, Inc., could not simply “repackage” arguments raised in its IPR petition to challenge the same patent via ex parte reexamination. Thus, the Patent Office, when applying § 325(d), cannot deny institution of IPR based on abusive filing practices then grant a nearly identical reexamination request that is even more abusive.” – CAFC “Section 325(d) applies to both IPR petitions and requests for ex parte reexamination.

What is a serial patent