The Federal Circuit's ruling in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. highlights a narrow interpretation of the term 'basis' in inter partes review proceedings. According to 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), IPRs should use prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The court scrutinized how the petitioner referred to its prior art, questioning whether it was labeled as 'basis' or 'reference.' This rigid classification leads to concerns about the strategic manipulation of the IPR system and yields unusual outcomes where key evidence does not count as a legal challenge's 'basis.'
The court's decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. emphasizes a strict interpretation of 'basis' in inter partes review proceedings, affecting the admissibility of applicant-admitted-prior-art.
In Shockwave, the distinction between labeling prior art evidence as 'basis' versus 'reference' played a crucial role, potentially undermining the integrity of the inter partes review system.
Collection
[
|
...
]