PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Interprets “By Another” in 35 § 102(e)

PTAB Interprets “By Another” in 35 § 102(e)

by Carl Kukkonen | May 2, 2017 | Prior Art Issues

By Amanda Leckman and Carl Kukkonen In connection with a dispute over parking meters, the PTAB, on March 27, 2017, issued a decision in IPR2016-00067 that Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. (DPT) had not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that...
IPRs Are Not Time Barred by an Earlier ITC Complaint

IPRs Are Not Time Barred by an Earlier ITC Complaint

by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 28, 2017 | PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits

By Yury Kalish Ph.D. and Carl Kukkonen See also, Jones Day ITC Blog’s posting on the Bosch case at: http://jonesdayitcblog.com/clock-file-ipr/ Since their introduction as part of the America Invents Act, Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) have proven to be a powerful...
Internet Advertising Claims Deemed Not Eligible for Covered Business Method Patent Review

Internet Advertising Claims Deemed Not Eligible for Covered Business Method Patent Review

by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 13, 2017 | CBMs, Claim Construction

By Vishal Khatri and Carl Kukkonen In a decision dated February 27, 2017, the Board denied institution of Google Inc.’s petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review of claims 20, 21, 23–26, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,651 (“the ’651 patent”) owned by...
Successful Rehearing of WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical- What Went Right?

Successful Rehearing of WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical- What Went Right?

by Carl Kukkonen | Feb 14, 2017 | Claim Construction, Request for Reconsideration

By Kamilah Alexander and Carl Kukkonen Conventional wisdom endorses the view that petitioning for a rehearing of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) final written decision is a waste of both attorney and client resources (i.e., time and money).  Does...
PTAB Denies IPR Request As Failing To Meet Threshold Determination Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

PTAB Denies IPR Request As Failing To Meet Threshold Determination Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

by Carl Kukkonen | Jan 16, 2017 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics

By Kevin Clark and Carl Kukkonen The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently reviewed the threshold necessary to institute a request for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. § 102.  Munchkin, Inc. v. Int’l Refills Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01154 (December 12,...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit
  • Federal Circuit Appeal
  • Final Written Decisions
  • Joinder
  • Motions Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Petitions
  • PGR
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preliminary Responses
  • Prior Art Issues
  • PTAB News
  • PTAB Trial Basics
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Request for Reconsideration
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Time Limits
  • Trial Institution
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

    • Privacy
    • X
    • RSS

    The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or its clients. The posts and information provided are for general information purposes and are not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.