# Post Grant Proceedings

> An independent educational guide to U.S. post-grant patent proceedings: inter partes review, post-grant review, ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination, reissue and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

PostGrantProceedings.com is an independent educational resource maintained by Wysebridge. Content is educational, is not legal advice, and cites primary authorities (35 U.S.C., 37 C.F.R., the MPEP and USPTO guidance). Maintained by Wysebridge (https://wysebridge.com).

## Main pages

- [USPTO and AIA Links](https://postgrantproceedings.com/aia-uspto-links/): Direct links to the primary sources for U.S. post-grant patent practice: 35 U.S.C., 37 C.F.R. Part 42, the MPEP, the Federal Register and the PTAB.
- [Post-Grant Proceedings Comparison Chart](https://postgrantproceedings.com/aia-uspto-links/pgr-chart/): Side-by-side chart of IPR, PGR, ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination, reissue and corrections: who, when, grounds, timing and estoppel.
- [Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: A Guide to Your Options](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/): Compare IPR, PGR, ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination, reissue, corrections and disclaimers to choose the right USPTO post-grant proceeding.
- [Post-Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/post-grant-review-and-inter-partes-review/): Compare PGR and IPR side by side: filing windows, eligible patents, allowed grounds, institution standards, timelines, estoppel, and how to choose between them.
- [PTAB Statistics](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ptab-statistics/): How to read PTAB statistics: petitions filed, institution rate, final written decision outcomes, settlements and where to find the USPTO's current data.
- [Post-Grant Resources](https://postgrantproceedings.com/resources/): Browse articles and reference pages on IPR, PGR, reexamination, reissue and PTAB practice, organized by topic with links to primary sources.
- [U.S. Patent Practice and PTAB Training Seminars](https://postgrantproceedings.com/training/): Virtual training seminars from Wysebridge on U.S. patent practice, PTAB proceedings and AI, for in-house counsel, IP teams and foreign patent practitioners.

## Proceedings guide

- [Certificate of Correction](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/certificate-of-correction/): When and how to use a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 254 and 255, what errors qualify, the new-matter limit, and when reissue is required instead.
- [Statutory Patent Disclaimers](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/disclaimers/): Learn how statutory and terminal patent disclaimers work under 35 U.S.C. 253 and 37 CFR 1.321, when owners use them, and what they cost the patent.
- [Ex Parte Reexamination](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/ex-parte-reexamination/): How ex parte reexamination works: who can request it, the substantial new question standard, the process, amendments, appeals and how it compares with IPR.
- [Inter Partes Reexamination (Historical)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/inter-partes-reexamination/): Inter partes reexamination was replaced by inter partes review on September 16, 2012. See what it was and what to use now.
- [Inter Partes Review (IPR)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/inter-partes-review/): How inter partes review works: who can file, the one-year time bar, grounds, institution standard, the 12-month timeline, amendments, estoppel and appeal.
- [Post-Grant Review (PGR)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/post-grant-review/): How post-grant review works: the nine-month deadline, eligible patents, grounds including sections 101 and 112, the institution standard, timeline and estoppel.
- [Reissue Applications](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/reissue-applications/): Patent reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251: grounds, the two-year broadening deadline, the recapture rule, intervening rights and how it compares with reexamination.
- [Supplemental Examination](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/supplemental-examination/): How supplemental examination works for patent owners: eligibility, the substantial new question test, effect on inequitable conduct, exceptions and risks.
- [The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/the-patent-trial-and-appeal-board/): What the PTAB does: ex parte appeals, inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation, panel structure, Director review, and where to find decisions.
- [Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (Historical)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/patent_modification/transitional-program-for-covered-business-method-patents/): What the CBM review program was, who could use it, why it sunset on September 16, 2020, and which proceedings now serve the same purpose.

## Articles

- [Why the PTAB Result Matters: How the Federal Circuit Reviews Board Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/a-timely-reminder-the-importance-of-winning-at-the-board/): Why the PTAB decision is usually decisive: substantial-evidence review, Rule 36 affirmances, forfeiture of new arguments, and standing to appeal.
- [Amending Patent Claims During Inter Partes Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/amending-patent-claims-during-inter-partes-review/): How IPR motions to amend work: § 316(d), 37 C.F.R. § 42.121, burdens after Aqua Products, preliminary guidance, intervening rights and alternatives.
- [Attacking a Patent at the PTO? Beware the Real Party in Interest](https://postgrantproceedings.com/attacking-a-patent-at-the-pto-beware-the-real-party-in-interest/): Practical real party in interest risks for PTAB petitioners: joint defense groups, indemnitors, customers and members, time bar exposure and RPI discovery.
- [The Basics of an Inter Partes Review Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/basics-of-an-inter-partes-review-petition/): What an inter partes review petition must include under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, the word limit, expert declarations and common failures.
- [Certificates of Correction and Third Parties](https://postgrantproceedings.com/certificate-of-correction-by-a-third-party/): What third parties can and cannot do about certificates of correction under 35 U.S.C. 254 and 255, 37 C.F.R. 1.322, and Superior Fireplace v. Majestic.
- [Cisco v. C-Cation: Incorporation by Reference in IPR Petitions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/cisco-systems-inc-v-c-cation-technologies-llc/): Case note on Cisco v. C-Cation, IPR2014-00454: why the PTAB will not consider arguments incorporated into a petition from an expert declaration.
- [Claim Construction During Inter Partes Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/claim-construction-during-inter-partes-review/): How the PTAB construes claims in inter partes review: the Phillips standard since November 2018, the older BRI standard, and prior court constructions.
- [Comparing Post-Grant Procedures at the USPTO, EPO and JPO](https://postgrantproceedings.com/comparing-notes-procedures-at-the-uspto-epo-and-jpo/): Compare U.S. PGR, IPR and reexamination with EPO opposition and JPO opposition and invalidation trials: timing, who can file, grounds and effect.
- [Defining “Privy” in AIA Trials](https://postgrantproceedings.com/defining-privy/): What privy means in IPR and PGR: the Taylor v. Sturgell categories, WesternGeco v. ION, and how privity differs from real party in interest.
- [Discovery and the One-Year Time Period in AIA Proceedings](https://postgrantproceedings.com/discovery-and-the-one-year-time-period-in-aia-proceedings/): How the one-year deadline for a PTAB final written decision shapes discovery: scheduling orders, due dates, stipulations and practical planning.
- [Discovery in Post-Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/discovery-in-post-grant-review-vs-inter-partes-review/): How discovery differs in PGR and IPR: routine discovery, the interests-of-justice and good-cause standards, and the Garmin v. Cuozzo factors.
- [Estoppel Arising from PTAB Trials](https://postgrantproceedings.com/estoppel-arising-from-ptab-trials/): How IPR and PGR estoppel works under 35 U.S.C. 315(e) and 325(e): the trigger, the could-have-raised scope, and product prior art.
- [Evidentiary Considerations in PTAB Trials](https://postgrantproceedings.com/evidentiary-considerations-in-ptab-trials/): How evidence works in PTAB trials: the Federal Rules of Evidence, objections, supplemental evidence, motions to exclude and expert weight.
- [Intervening Rights Arise Only When Claim Text Is Amended: Marine Polymer v. HemCon](https://postgrantproceedings.com/federal-circuit-decides-en-banc-that-intervening-rights-only-apply-when-text-of-claims-were-amended-during-reissue-and-reexamination/): Absolute and equitable intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. 252, 307(b), 318(c) and 328(c), and why Marine Polymer v. HemCon ties them to amended claim text.
- [The First AIA Trials and What They Established](https://postgrantproceedings.com/first-aia-review-hearing-held-at-uspto/): How the first AIA trials, Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001) and SAP v. Versata (CBM2012-00001), shaped discovery, claim construction and § 101 practice.
- [Getting the Last Word in PTAB Trials](https://postgrantproceedings.com/getting-the-last-word-in-ptab-trials/): The PTAB briefing sequence from petition to oral hearing, the limits on replies and sur-replies under 37 C.F.R. 42.23(b), and rules for demonstratives.
- [Cuozzo and the End of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation at the PTAB](https://postgrantproceedings.com/in-re-cuozzo-and-the-broadest-reasonable-interpretation-standard-should-the-ability-to-amend-be-relevant-or-is-it-a-convenient-excuse/): The history of BRI in IPR: the ability-to-amend debate, In re Cuozzo, the 2016 Supreme Court decision and the 2018 switch to Phillips.
- [In re Tanaka: Adding a Narrower Dependent Claim Is a Reissuable Error](https://postgrantproceedings.com/in-re-tanaka/): In re Tanaka (Fed. Cir. 2011) held that adding a narrower dependent claim while keeping all original claims is a correctable error supporting reissue.
- [In re Yamazaki: Terminal Disclaimers and Reissue Applications](https://postgrantproceedings.com/in-re-yamazaki-terminal-disclaimers-and-reissue-applications/): In re Yamazaki (Fed. Cir. 2012): reissue cannot undo a terminal disclaimer after the disclaimed term expires. How terminal disclaimers work.
- [In re Youman: When a Broadened Reissue Claim Avoids Recapture](https://postgrantproceedings.com/in-re-youman-a-second-bite-at-the-apple-or-permissible-recapture-in-a-reissue-patent/): The reissue recapture rule and its three-step test, and how In re Youman (Fed. Cir. 2012) treats a modified narrowing limitation in a reissue claim.
- [IPR Challenges to Biopharmaceutical Patents](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ipr-challenges-to-biopharmaceutical-patents/): How IPR is used against drug and biologic patents alongside Paragraph IV and BPCIA litigation: grounds, obviousness issues, time bars, estoppel and PGR.
- [Why a Court’s Validity Ruling Does Not Bar Reexamination at the USPTO](https://postgrantproceedings.com/judicial-determination-of-validity-does-not-preclude-subsequent-reexamination-in-uspto/): Why a court ruling that a patent is not invalid does not stop USPTO reexamination: Ethicon v. Quigg, In re Swanson and Fresenius v. Baxter.
- [The PTAB Trial Practice Guide: What It Is and How to Use It](https://postgrantproceedings.com/latest-edition-of-ptab-trial-practice-guide-july-201/): What the PTAB Trial Practice Guide covers, how it evolved into the 2019 consolidated edition, and how it fits with Part 42 and precedential decisions.
- [Supreme Court Decisions on Post-Grant Practice and Patent Validity](https://postgrantproceedings.com/links-for-supreme-court-decisions/): A themed reference list of Supreme Court decisions on AIA trials, patent eligibility and validity, with short summaries and links to each opinion.
- [After Therasense, Why Supplemental Examination Is Less Attractive](https://postgrantproceedings.com/post-therasense-why-supplemental-examination-is-less-attractive/): How Therasense v. Becton Dickinson reduced the value of supplemental examination under 35 U.S.C. 257(c), and when patent owners may still find it useful.
- [Prior User Rights: The Prior Commercial Use Defense under 35 U.S.C. § 273](https://postgrantproceedings.com/prior-user-rights/): How the prior commercial use defense of 35 U.S.C. § 273 works: who qualifies, the one-year rule, covered subject matter, limits and proof.
- [PTAB Practice after SAS Institute v. Iancu](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ptab-guidance-after-sas-scotus-decision/): What SAS Institute v. Iancu held, how the PTAB changed institution practice afterward, and what the change means for discretion, efficiency and estoppel.
- [How the PTAB Trial Rules Have Changed Since 2012](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ptab-rules-quick-fix-1/): A history of the PTAB trial rules in 37 C.F.R. Part 42: the 2012 AIA rules, the 2015 quick fix, 2016 word limits, the 2018 Phillips rule and later changes.
- [Reissue Applications: Procedure, Advantages and Pitfalls](https://postgrantproceedings.com/reissue-applications-procedure-advantages-pitfalls/): How patent reissue works under 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 C.F.R. 1.171 to 1.179, what it can fix, and the risks of recapture and intervening rights.
- [Reissue vs. Supplemental Examination: Choosing a Patent-Owner Tool](https://postgrantproceedings.com/reissue-v-supplemental-examination/): Reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251 vs. supplemental examination under 257: who files, what each fixes, amendments, timing, inequitable conduct and risk.
- [How Often Is Supplemental Examination Used, and What Happens Next](https://postgrantproceedings.com/some-early-statistics-for-supplemental-examination/): Outcomes of supplemental examination, where to find current USPTO data on its use, and why request volumes are low compared with inter partes review.
- [Starting a Post-Grant Proceeding: The Different Threshold Standards](https://postgrantproceedings.com/starting-an-aia-post-grant-proceeding-the-different-threshold-standards/): How the institution thresholds for IPR, PGR, ex parte reexamination and supplemental examination differ, and why meeting them does not guarantee review.
- [Supplemental Examination: A Detailed Look at the Procedure](https://postgrantproceedings.com/supplemental-examination-a-more-detailed-review-of-procedure-including-the-uspto-proposed-rules/): Supplemental examination procedure under 35 U.S.C. 257 and 37 C.F.R. 1.601 to 1.625: request contents, the twelve-item limit, fees and reexamination.
- [Supplementing the Record in PTAB Trials with Supplemental Information](https://postgrantproceedings.com/supplementing-the-record-in-ptab-trials-by-filing-supplemental-information/): How a party adds supplemental information to an IPR or PGR record under 37 C.F.R. 42.123, how it differs from supplemental evidence, and its limits.
- [Taking a Deposition in an IPR or PGR](https://postgrantproceedings.com/taking-a-deposition-in-an-ipr-or-pgr/): How depositions work in IPR and PGR: declarations as direct testimony, 42.53 time limits, Testimony Guidelines, foreign witnesses and subpoenas.
- [From the BPAI to the PTAB: A Short History of the Board](https://postgrantproceedings.com/the-patent-trial-appeal-board/): How the BPAI became the PTAB under the AIA, the new trial proceedings, the end of interferences, and the Oil States and Arthrex decisions.
- [Reading PTAB Trial Outcomes: Institution, Settlement and Final Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/trial-statistics-from-the-patent-trial-appeal-board/): How PTAB trials end and how outcome rates are calculated: denial, settlement under § 317, adverse judgment, final decisions, and why reported rates differ.
- [Natural Products and Diagnostics after Myriad: Patent Eligibility Today](https://postgrantproceedings.com/understanding-and-prosecution-strategies-for-complying-with-the-uspto-myriad-guidance/): Patent eligibility for natural products and diagnostics after Mayo, Myriad and Alice, USPTO guidance in MPEP § 2106, and § 101 in post-grant review.
- [Sanctions at the PTAB: What Conduct Is Sanctionable and What the Board Can Do](https://postgrantproceedings.com/what-we-know-about-sanctions-at-the-ptab/): How PTAB sanctions work under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12: sanctionable misconduct, the duty of candor, available sanctions and abuse of process.
- [Who Is the Real Party in Interest in an IPR or PGR?](https://postgrantproceedings.com/who-is-the-real-party-in-interest-in-an-ipr-or-pgr/): The legal test for a real party in interest in IPR and PGR: the disclosure duty, control and funding, the RPX case, and why the time bar turns on it.

## PTAB decision notes

- [Proppant Express v. Oren Technologies (IPR2017-01917): Adding Real Parties in Interest after Institution](https://postgrantproceedings.com/1023-2/): Case note on Proppant Express v. Oren, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86: adding real parties in interest after institution while keeping the filing date.
- [The Alice Two-Step Test in Post-Grant Proceedings](https://postgrantproceedings.com/alice-corporation-v-cls-bank-how-will-the-supreme-court-decide/): How Alice § 101 eligibility arguments reach the PTAB: post-grant review, the former CBM program, substitute claims in IPR, and MPEP § 2106 guidance.
- [Amazon v. Uniloc (IPR2017-00948, Paper 34): Substitute Claims Can Be Challenged under § 101](https://postgrantproceedings.com/amazon-com-v-uniloc-luxembourg-s-a-ipr2017-00948-paper-no-34-patent-no-8566960-b2/): Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948, Paper 34: why the PTAB may consider § 101 eligibility of substitute claims proposed in a motion to amend.
- [Amneal v. Endo (IPR2014-00360): A Proposed Amended Complaint Does Not Start the § 315(b) Clock](https://postgrantproceedings.com/amneal-pharmaceuticals-llc-v-endo-pharmaceuticals-inc/): Case note on Amneal v. Endo, IPR2014-00360: why a proposed amended complaint attached to a motion did not trigger the one-year IPR time bar of 315(b).
- [AOL v. Coho Licensing (IPR2014-00771, Paper 12): No Party Requests for Expanded Panels, and No New Arguments on Rehearing](https://postgrantproceedings.com/aol-inc-and-cloudera-inc-v-coho-licensing-llc/): AOL v. Coho Licensing, IPR2014-00771, Paper 12: why parties cannot request expanded panels and why rehearing cannot fill gaps in a petition.
- [Argentum v. Alcon (IPR2017-01053): What a Motion to Seal Must Show](https://postgrantproceedings.com/argentum-pharm-llc-v-alcon-research-ltd/): Case note on Argentum v. Alcon, IPR2017-01053, Paper 27: the four-part good cause showing the PTAB requires for a motion to seal.
- [Ariosa v. Isis (IPR2012-00022, Paper 55): Guidelines for a Deposition Through an Interpreter](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ariosa-diagnostics-v-isis-innovation-ltd-2/): Case note on Ariosa v. Isis, IPR2012-00022, Paper 55: the Board's guidelines for foreign-language depositions and testimony taken abroad.
- [Ariosa v. Isis (IPR2012-00022): An Incomplete-Petition Notice and the § 315(a)(1) Bar](https://postgrantproceedings.com/ariosa-diagnostics-v-isis-innovation-ltd/): Case note on Ariosa v. Isis, IPR2012-00022: an incomplete-petition notice, and why a non-infringement DJ action did not trigger the § 315(a) bar.
- [ARRIS v. C-Cation (IPR2015-00635, Paper 10): Additional Discovery on Privity and the Time Bar](https://postgrantproceedings.com/arris-group-inc-v-c-cation-technologies-llc/): ARRIS v. C-Cation, IPR2015-00635, Paper 10: why the PTAB ordered production of indemnity agreements bearing on privity and the 315(b) bar.
- [Athena v. Husky (IPR2013-00290): Assignor Estoppel Does Not Bar an IPR Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/athena-automation-ltd-v-husky-injection-molding-systems-ltd/): Case note on Athena Automation v. Husky, IPR2013-00290: why the PTAB held that assignor estoppel does not bar an inventor’s company from seeking IPR.
- [Becton, Dickinson v. B. Braun (IPR2017-01586): The § 325(d) Factors](https://postgrantproceedings.com/becton-dickinson-and-co-v-b-braun-melsungen-ag/): Case note on Becton, Dickinson v. B. Braun, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8: the six factors the PTAB weighs under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
- [Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert (CBM2013-00005, Paper 32): The Good Cause Standard for Additional Discovery](https://postgrantproceedings.com/bloomberg-inc-v-markets-alert-pty-ltd/): Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert, CBM2013-00005, Paper 32: how the PTAB applied a good cause standard to additional discovery in a CBM review.
- [Conopco v. Procter & Gamble (IPR2014-00506): Rehearing Denied for a Follow-on Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/conopco-inc-dba-unilever-v-the-procter-gamble-co/): Case note on Conopco v. Procter & Gamble, IPR2014-00506, Paper 25: rehearing denied for a follow-on IPR petition and a request for panel expansion.
- [Corning v. DSM (IPR2013-00043, Paper 27): Additional Discovery of Laboratory Notebooks](https://postgrantproceedings.com/corning-inc-v-dsm-ip-assets-b-v/): Corning v. DSM, IPR2013-00043, Paper 27: when the PTAB will order production of the lab notebooks and test data behind an expert’s testimony.
- [Corning Optical v. PPC Broadband (IPR2014-00441): Guidance after a Conference to Confer on Amendment](https://postgrantproceedings.com/corning-optical-communications-rf-llc-v-ppc-broadband-inc/): Corning Optical v. PPC Broadband, IPR2014-00441, Paper 19: the Board’s checklist for substitute claims, written description, and priority chains.
- [CRS v. Frontline (CBM2012-00005, Paper 31): Motions Lists, Claim Construction and Schedule Changes](https://postgrantproceedings.com/crs-advanced-technologies-inc-v-frontline-technologies-inc/): Case note on CRS v. Frontline, CBM2012-00005, Paper 31: motions lists, no separate claim construction phase, and requests to change the schedule.
- [Cultec v. StormTech (IPR2017-00777): § 325(d) after a Third-Party Submission](https://postgrantproceedings.com/cultec-inc-v-stormtech-llc/): Case note on Cultec v. StormTech, IPR2017-00777, Paper 7: PTAB denial under § 325(d) where art was presented in a third-party preissuance submission.
- [Facebook v. Skky (CBM2016-00091): Pre-Institution Disclaimers and CBM Review Eligibility](https://postgrantproceedings.com/facebook-inc-and-instagram-llc-v-skky-llc/): Case note on Facebook v. Skky, CBM2016-00091: why claims disclaimed before institution could not make a patent eligible for CBM review.
- [LaRose Industries v. Choon’s Design (PGR2014-00008): The First Post-Grant Review Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/first-pgr-filed-larose-indus-v-choons-design-pgr2014-00008/): LaRose Industries v. Choon’s Design, PGR2014-00008: the first post-grant review petition and why it took until 2014 for a PGR to be filed.
- [Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 15): The Decision to Institute the First IPR](https://postgrantproceedings.com/garmin-intl-inc-v-cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc/): Case note on Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 15: how the Board construed the claims and instituted the first inter partes review on three claims.
- [Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 34): What a Motion to Seal Must Contain](https://postgrantproceedings.com/garmin-intl-inc-v-cuozzo-speed-techs-llc-2/): Case note on Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 34: why a bare motion to seal failed and what the Board required in a revised motion.
- [Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 36): Sealing Personal Data, Not Waived Privilege](https://postgrantproceedings.com/garmin-intl-inc-v-cuozzo-speed-techs-llc-3/): Case note on Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36: why the Board sealed personal records but not privileged letters filed to prove diligence.
- [Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 26): The Five Additional Discovery Factors](https://postgrantproceedings.com/garmin-intl-inc-v-cuozzo-speed-techs-llc/): Case note on Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26: the five Garmin factors for additional discovery in IPR and how the Board applied them.
- [GEA Process Engineering v. Steuben Foods (IPR2014-00041): An Unnamed Affiliate That Funded the Petitions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/gea-process-engineering-inc-v-steuben-foods-inc/): GEA v. Steuben Foods, IPR2014-00041: how affiliate funding made an unnamed RPI, and why the Board vacated institution in five instituted IPRs.
- [General Plastic v. Canon (IPR2016-01357): The Follow-on Petition Factors](https://postgrantproceedings.com/general-plastic-industrial-co-ltd-v-canon-kabushiki-kaisha_precedential/): Case note on General Plastic v. Canon, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19: the seven factors the PTAB weighs when a petitioner files follow-on IPR petitions.
- [Hospira v. Genentech (IPR2017-00739): § 325(d) and a Priority Date the Examiner Decided](https://postgrantproceedings.com/hospira-inc-v-genentech-inc/): Case note on Hospira v. Genentech, IPR2017-00739, Paper 16: § 325(d) denial where the examiner already resolved the priority issue the petition relied on.
- [Huawei v. Optis Cellular (IPR2018-00816): New Evidence with a Rehearing Request](https://postgrantproceedings.com/huawei-device-co-v-optis-cellular-tech-llc-ipr2018-00816-paper-no-19-patent-no-8437293/): Case note on Huawei v. Optis Cellular, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19: new evidence on rehearing requires good cause, and new arguments will not be heard.
- [Idle Free v. Bergstrom (IPR2012-00027): The Board’s Early Guidance on Motions to Amend](https://postgrantproceedings.com/idle-free-systems-inc-v-bergstrom-inc/): Case note on Idle Free v. Bergstrom, IPR2012-00027, Paper 26: early PTAB guidance on substitute claims, conferring, and the motion to amend burden.
- [Intellectual Ventures Management v. Xilinx (IPR2012-00018): A Patent Owner Must Show Why the RPI Disclosure Is Wrong](https://postgrantproceedings.com/intellectual-ventures-management-llc-v-patents-of-xilinx-inc/): IV Management v. Xilinx, IPR2012-00018: why a district court interested-entities list did not prove an unnamed real party in interest.
- [Inter Partes Review and Limited Discovery: Applying the Garmin Factors in Practice](https://postgrantproceedings.com/inter-partes-review-and-limited-discovery-garmin-v-cuozzo/): Practical explainer on the Garmin factors: what a motion for additional discovery in inter partes review should show, and common failures.
- [IBM v. Financial Systems Technology (IPR2013-00078, Paper 7): Guidance on Filing a Settlement](https://postgrantproceedings.com/intl-business-machines-corp-v-financial-systems-tech-pty-ltd-2/): Case note on IBM v. Financial Systems Technology, IPR2013-00078, Paper 7: guidance on filing a settlement and a joint motion to terminate.
- [IBM v. Financial Systems Technology (IPR2013-00078, Paper 11): Terminating an IPR before Institution](https://postgrantproceedings.com/intl-business-machines-corp-v-financial-systems-tech-pty-ltd/): Case note on IBM v. Financial Systems Technology, IPR2013-00078, Paper 11: how the Board terminated an IPR that settled before institution.
- [International Flavors & Fragrances v. United States (IPR2013-00124): A Motion to Amend Granted in Part](https://postgrantproceedings.com/intl-flavors-and-fragrances-inc-v-u-s-as-represented-by-secretary-of-agriculture/): IFF v. United States (USDA), IPR2013-00124: a final written decision granting a motion to amend in part and denying a claim drawn to an inherent new use.
- [Kayak v. IBM (CBM2016-00075): Denying Review of Art Already Considered in Prosecution](https://postgrantproceedings.com/kayak-software-corp-v-intl-bus-mach-corp/): Case note on Kayak v. IBM, CBM2016-00075: how the PTAB used 35 U.S.C. 325(d) to deny review of art already considered during a long prosecution.
- [Kyocera v. Softview (IPR2013-00004, Paper 15): Authorizing a Third Party's Motion for Joinder](https://postgrantproceedings.com/kyocera-corp-v-softview-llc/): Case note on Kyocera v. Softview, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15: what the Board required of a third party seeking leave to file a motion for joinder.
- [LG Electronics v. Mondis (IPR2015-00937): The First Complaint Starts the § 315(b) Clock](https://postgrantproceedings.com/lg-electronics-inc-v-mondis-technology-ltd/): Case note on LG Electronics v. Mondis, IPR2015-00937, Paper 8: why a later complaint did not restart the one-year bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
- [Liberty Mutual v. Progressive (CBM2012-00002): Filing Date Notice and a Telephonic Certification](https://postgrantproceedings.com/liberty-mutual-insurance-company-v-progressive-casualty-bhgl/): Case note on the CBM2012-00002 filing date notice: a missing § 42.304 standing certification cured by phone, and the deadlines a filing date sets.
- [Lighting Ballast v. Philips: How the Federal Circuit Reviews Claim Construction](https://postgrantproceedings.com/lighting-ballast-v-philips-electronics-what-is-the-proper-claim-construction-standard-for-cafc-review/): Lighting Ballast v. Philips and Teva v. Sandoz: how review of claim construction changed, and how the Federal Circuit reviews PTAB constructions.
- [LKQ v. Clearlamp (IPR2013-00020, Paper 17): Evidentiary Objections Must Wait for Trial](https://postgrantproceedings.com/lkq-corp-v-clearlamp-llc/): LKQ v. Clearlamp, IPR2013-00020, Paper 17: why a motion to exclude petition exhibits in a preliminary response was premature under 37 C.F.R. 42.64.
- [Lumentum v. Capella Photonics (IPR2015-00739): Updating the Real Party in Interest Is Not Jurisdictional](https://postgrantproceedings.com/lumentum-holdings-inc-v-capella-photonics-inc/): Case note on Lumentum v. Capella Photonics, IPR2015-00739, Paper 38: why § 312(a) is not jurisdictional and a late RPI update did not end the IPR.
- [Luv N' Care v. McGinley (IPR2017-01216): An Unpaid Fee, a Later Filing Date and the Time Bar](https://postgrantproceedings.com/luv-n-care-ltd-v-michael-l-mcginley/): Case note on Luv N' Care v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13: why a failed fee payment cost a petition its filing date and triggered the § 315(b) bar.
- [Macauto v. BOS (IPR2012-00004, Paper 21): Termination after Settlement Is Discretionary](https://postgrantproceedings.com/macauto-u-s-a-v-bos-gmbh-kg/): Case note on Macauto v. BOS, IPR2012-00004, Paper 21: the Board's guidance on settling an instituted IPR and its discretion to continue to a decision.
- [Macauto v. Baumeister & Ostler (IPR2012-00004): A Notice of Defective Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/macauto-usa-v-baumeister-ostler-gmbh-co/): Case note on the IPR2012-00004 notice of defective petition: related matters, exhibit numbering, counsel designation and the filing date.
- [MasterImage 3D v. RealD (IPR2015-00040): Clarifying the Idle Free Motion-to-Amend Burden](https://postgrantproceedings.com/masterimage-3d-inc-and-masterimage-3d-asia-llc-v-reald-inc/): MasterImage 3D v. RealD, IPR2015-00040, Paper 42: how the Board narrowed Idle Free’s prior art burden on motions to amend, and what replaced it.
- [Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2012-00026, Paper 32): No Commercial-Success Discovery Without Nexus](https://postgrantproceedings.com/microsoft-corp-v-proxyconn-inc-2/): Case note on Microsoft v. Proxyconn, IPR2012-00026, Paper 32: why the Board denied additional discovery on commercial success without a showing of nexus.
- [Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2012-00026, Paper 17): Instituting Review and Construing the Claims](https://postgrantproceedings.com/microsoft-corp-v-proxyconn-inc/): Case note on Microsoft v. Proxyconn, IPR2012-00026, Paper 17: claim construction, means-plus-function terms and an unsupported ground at IPR institution.
- [Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2013-00109, Paper 15): Joining a Petitioner's Second IPR](https://postgrantproceedings.com/microsoft-inc-v-proxyconn-inc/): Case note on Microsoft v. Proxyconn, IPR2013-00109, Paper 15: early same-party joinder under 35 U.S.C. 315(c) and the one-year bar, with later history.
- [Motorola Mobility v. Arnouse (IPR2013-00010, Paper 20): Service of a Complaint Means Formal Service](https://postgrantproceedings.com/motorola-mobility-llc-v-michael-arnouse/): Motorola v. Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20: why receiving a complaint without a summons did not start the one-year 315(b) bar.
- [Nichia v. Emcore (IPR2012-00005): Conferring and Written Description Support for Substitute Claims](https://postgrantproceedings.com/nichia-corp-v-emcore-corp/): Nichia v. Emcore, IPR2012-00005, Paper 27: what conferring with the Board requires and how to show written description support for substitute claims.
- [Oracle v. Click-to-Call (IPR2013-00312): § 315(b) and a Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice](https://postgrantproceedings.com/oracle-corp-v-click-to-call-tech-lp/): Case note on Oracle v. Click-to-Call, IPR2013-00312, Paper 26: the Board's early § 315(b) ruling on dismissed complaints, and why it is no longer followed.
- [Accord Healthcare v. Helsinn (PGR2014-00010): An Early Post-Grant Review Petition](https://postgrantproceedings.com/petition-for-the-second-pgr-filed-accord-healthcare-v-helsinn-healthcare/): Accord Healthcare v. Helsinn, PGR2014-00010: what an early post-grant review petition looked like and why PGR filings were rare at first.
- [American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle (PGR2015-00003): An Early Post-Grant Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/petition-for-the-third-pgr-filed-american-simmental-assn-v-leachman-cattle/): American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle, PGR2015-00003: what early post-grant review petitions show about PGR and why it began slowly.
- [Proppant Express v. Oren Technologies (IPR2018-00914): Same-Party and Issue Joinder under § 315(c)](https://postgrantproceedings.com/proppant-express-investments-llc-v-oren-techs-llc-ipr2018-00914-paper-38-patent-no-9511929-b2/): Case note on Proppant Express v. Oren, IPR2018-00914, Paper 38: the POP decision on same-party and issue joinder, later rejected in Facebook v. Windy City.
- [Reflectix v. Promethean Insulation (IPR2015-00039): An Unnamed Parent as Real Party in Interest](https://postgrantproceedings.com/reflectix-inc-v-promethian-insulation-technology-llc/): Case note on Reflectix v. Promethean Insulation, IPR2015-00039, Paper 18: petitions denied for failing to name a parent company as real party in interest.
- [SAP v. Versata (CBM2012-00001, Paper 24): Protective Order, Discovery and Timing before Institution](https://postgrantproceedings.com/sap-america-inc-v-versata-development-group-inc-2/): Case note on SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-00001, Paper 24: how the Board handled a protective order, discovery requests and a deadline before institution.
- [SAP v. Versata (CBM2012-00001, Paper 37): The Scheduling Order for the First CBM Trial](https://postgrantproceedings.com/sap-america-inc-v-versata-development-group-inc-3/): Case note on the SAP v. Versata scheduling order, CBM2012-00001, Paper 37: the seven due dates, stipulations, cross-examination and observations.
- [SecureBuy v. CardinalCommerce (CBM2014-00035): A Prior Declaratory Judgment Action Bars Review](https://postgrantproceedings.com/securebuy-llc-v-cardinalcommerce-corp/): Case note on SecureBuy v. CardinalCommerce, CBM2014-00035, Paper 12: a prior declaratory judgment action on validity barred CBM review under § 325(a)(1).
- [Shaw Industries v. Automated Creel (IPR2013-00132, Paper 36): A Combined Oral Hearing Order](https://postgrantproceedings.com/shaw-industries-group-inc-v-automated-creel-systems-inc/): Shaw Industries v. Automated Creel, IPR2013-00132, Paper 36: a typical PTAB oral hearing order, and the later Federal Circuit estoppel ruling in the case.
- [Alice v. CLS Bank: From the Fractured En Banc Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court](https://postgrantproceedings.com/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-alice-corporation-v-cls-bank/): How Alice v. CLS Bank moved from a fractured en banc Federal Circuit decision to the 2014 Supreme Court ruling that set the two-step eligibility test.
- [Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics (IPR2012-00042, Paper 49): An Early Trial Hearing Order](https://postgrantproceedings.com/synopsis-inc-v-mentor-graphic-corporation/): Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, IPR2012-00042, Paper 49: a basic PTAB oral hearing order, and the later appeal on partial institution.
- [TRW Automotive v. Magna Electronics (IPR2014-00293): A Proposed Amended Complaint Is Not Service of a Complaint](https://postgrantproceedings.com/trw-automotive-us-llc-v-magna-electronics-inc/): TRW v. Magna, IPR2014-00293, Paper 18: why a proposed amended complaint did not trigger the 315(b) bar, and an RPI challenge that failed.
- [Unified Patents v. Berman (IPR2016-01571): Applying § 325(d) Ground by Ground](https://postgrantproceedings.com/unified-patents-inc-v-john-l-berman/): Case note on Unified Patents v. Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10: how the PTAB applied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to some grounds but not others.
- [Unified Patents v. Parallel Iron (IPR2013-00639, Paper 7): Requirements for Pro Hac Vice Admission](https://postgrantproceedings.com/unified-patents-inc-v-parallel-iron-llc/): Unified Patents v. Parallel Iron, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7: when and how non-registered counsel may seek pro hac vice admission in a PTAB trial.
- [Valve v. Electronic Scripting Products (IPR2019-00062): General Plastic and Related Petitioners](https://postgrantproceedings.com/valve-corp-v-elec-scripting-prods-inc-ipr2019-00062-00063-00084-paper-no-8-patent-no-9235934-b2/): Case note on Valve v. Electronic Scripting Products, IPR2019-00062: applying the General Plastic factors to a different but related petitioner.
- [Western Digital v. SPEX (IPR2018-00082, -00084): Motion to Amend Guidance after Aqua Products](https://postgrantproceedings.com/western-digital-corp-v-spex-techs-inc/): Western Digital v. SPEX, IPR2018-00082 and -00084, Paper 13: informative guidance on motions to amend after Aqua Products shifted the burden.
- [Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance (CBM2014-00176): Estoppel Applies Claim by Claim](https://postgrantproceedings.com/westlake-services-llc-v-credit-acceptance-corp/): Case note on Westlake v. Credit Acceptance, CBM2014-00176, Paper 28: § 325(e)(1) estoppel did not reach claims never instituted in an earlier review.

## Decision categories

- [PTAB Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/): Browse notes on PTAB decisions by category: precedential, informative and representative decisions, institution, motions to amend, discovery and settlement.
- [PTAB Decisions on Evidence and Discovery](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/evidentiary-decisions-and-orders-including-discovery/): Notes on PTAB evidence and discovery orders: the Garmin factors, good cause discovery in CBM, motions to seal and motions to exclude.
- [Informative PTAB Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/informative-decisions/): Notes on informative PTAB decisions: § 325(d) denials, serial petitions, sealing, depositions and other recurring trial issues, with later history.
- [Other Key PTAB Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/other-key-decisions/): Notes on frequently cited PTAB decisions on real party in interest, additional discovery, rehearing requests and serial petitions.
- [Representative PTAB Orders and Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/other-representative-orders-and-decisions/): Notes on representative early PTAB orders on joinder, standing, pro hac vice, timeliness and real party in interest in AIA trials.
- [Precedential PTAB Decisions](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/precedential-decisions/): Notes on precedential PTAB decisions on institution, discovery, real party in interest, the time bar, joinder and motions to amend, with later history.
- [PTAB Decisions on Institution](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-decisions-on-institution/): Notes on PTAB institution decisions: the reasonable-likelihood threshold, statutory bars, estoppel at institution and rehearing.
- [PTAB Decisions on Motions to Amend](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-decisions-on-motions-to-amend/): Notes on PTAB motion-to-amend decisions: duty to confer, written description support, burdens after Aqua Products and § 101 for substitute claims.
- [Representative PTAB Notices](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-notices/): Notes on PTAB notices: filing date accorded, incomplete or defective petitions, and the deadlines they trigger for petitioners and patent owners.
- [PTAB Scheduling Orders](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-scheduling-orders/): Notes on PTAB scheduling orders: trial due dates, motions lists and which deadlines parties may stipulate to change.
- [PTAB Orders on Settlement](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-settlement-related-orders/): Notes on PTAB settlement orders: filing settlement agreements, terminating before or after institution, and the Board's discretion under § 317.
- [PTAB Oral Hearing Orders](https://postgrantproceedings.com/category/ptab-decisions/representative-trial-hearing-orders/): Notes on PTAB oral hearing orders: time allocation, demonstrative exhibits, combined hearings and what may not be raised for the first time at hearing.

## Legal and site information

- [Contact Us](https://postgrantproceedings.com/contact-us/): Contact Wysebridge about PostGrantProceedings.com: corrections, privacy requests, training seminars and site questions. No legal advice is provided.
- [Cookie Policy](https://postgrantproceedings.com/cookie-policy/): Cookie Policy for PostGrantProceedings.com: essential storage, optional analytics cookies, Global Privacy Control, and how to change your choice.
- [About This Site](https://postgrantproceedings.com/editor/): Who maintains Post Grant Proceedings, how content is written and sourced, how to request a correction, and how the site relates to Wysebridge training.
- [Legal Disclaimer](https://postgrantproceedings.com/legal-disclaimer/): Legal disclaimer for PostGrantProceedings.com: educational information only, no legal advice, no attorney-client relationship, no warranties.
- [Privacy Policy](https://postgrantproceedings.com/privacy-policy/): Privacy Policy for PostGrantProceedings.com: what is collected, why, service providers, retention, and your rights under U.S. and EU law.
- [Terms of Use](https://postgrantproceedings.com/terms-of-use/): Terms of Use for PostGrantProceedings.com: permitted use, intellectual property, prohibited conduct, disclaimers, limitation of liability and changes.

## Optional

- [Full text of key pages](https://postgrantproceedings.com/llms-full.txt)
- [Sitemap](https://postgrantproceedings.com/sitemap.xml)