Woman holding hearing aid

Precedential: Declining To Use Discretion Under § 325(d) And § 314(a), PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.

As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative.  Here is an in depth review of the informative decision.

On March 24, 2020,the PTAB designated two sections of the Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Ltd. decision as precedential.  IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) (“Decision”).  The precedential sections decline to deny institution of a petition under § 325(d) and § 314(a). Consequently, the Board instituted review of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,807, which is directed to cranial anchoring elements for hearing devices.  (Decision at 1-3.)

Read the full article at

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.