1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

PTAB Wants an Explanation for Your Follow-On Petitions

Sep 25, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Rubén H. Muñoz

The PTAB considers seven factors under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), as outlined in its 2016 Nvidia decision, in determining whether to allow follow-on petitions, including:

  • Whether, at the time of the filing of the original petition, the petitioner knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition
  • Whether, at the time of the filing of the second petition, the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition
  • whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions.

These factors center on the issue that a petitioner can benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study the patent owner’s response and the prior decision denying institution to use as a roadmap to find an argument that results in a grant of review.

The PTAB appears to have seized on the following fact: the petitioner waited until after the PTAB had denied institution of the original petitions on the merits before submitting the follow-on petitions. In fact, the petitioner did not initiate the new prior art search for the follow-on petitions until after the PTAB’s decision denying institution of the original petitions was issued. The PTAB’s decision stated that “we are concerned by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in the follow-on petitions.”

Instead of arguing why the prior art used in the follow-on petitions could not have been found earlier, the petitioner argued that the PTAB should not have considered the Nvidia factors under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) at all. The Petitioner further argued that the PTAB should have considered only 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which focuses on whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [were previously] presented to the Office.” The petitioner argued that § 325(d) was the only relevant statute to consider when determining whether to institute a follow-on petition. The PTAB disagreed, finding no statutory language or legislative history that was intended to limit the discretion whether to institute under § 314(a).

General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper No. 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017).

Share This Insight

Categories

Patent Trial & Appeal Board
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.