The case of Ecto World, LLC and SV3, LLC v RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. clarified the obligations of petitioners when relying on prior art that was previously considered by the PTO. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), a petitioner must demonstrate that the PTO made a material mistake regarding the patentability of the claims. The USPTO Director's decision also illustrated how a petitioner's assumption that prior art was not considered is insufficient without proper justification, emphasizing the need for detailed analysis in IPR petitions.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the prior art was not adequately considered by the PTO.
The May 19, 2025 decision by the USPTO Director highlights the intricacies of relying on previously considered prior art and the materiality of the PTO's examination.
Collection
[
|
...
]