PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Collateral Estoppel Applied by District Court Following IPR on Similar Patents

Collateral Estoppel Applied by District Court Following IPR on Similar Patents

by Carl Kukkonen | Jan 29, 2020 | Estoppel

By Phillip Shelton and Carl Kukkonen – In Think Prod., Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., No. 18-CV-07506, 2019 WL 6609427, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019), the District Court addressed whether the plaintiff patent ower was collaterally estopped from arguing validity in...
Federal Circuit Three Times More Likely to Rule 36 Patent Owner-Appellants

Federal Circuit Three Times More Likely to Rule 36 Patent Owner-Appellants

by Carl Kukkonen | Nov 25, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Austin Ball and Carl Kukkonen When patent owners appeal PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit, 67% of subsequent opinions are one-line Federal Circuit Rule 36 (“Rule 36”) summary affirmance orders, but when petitioners appeal, that number is a mere 18%.  Chestnut...
Precedential Order Confirms Involuntary Dismissal Triggers § 315(b) Time Bar

Precedential Order Confirms Involuntary Dismissal Triggers § 315(b) Time Bar

by Carl Kukkonen | Sep 17, 2019 | PTAB News, Time Limits

By Amanda Leckman and Carl Kukkonen On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2.  In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent Owner...
Precedential PTAB Order Addresses Witness Examination

Precedential PTAB Order Addresses Witness Examination

by Carl Kukkonen | Jul 22, 2019 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News

By Carl Kukkonen The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination.  This clarification was in response...
POP: Does A Complaint Without Standing Trigger The IPR Time Bar?

POP: Does A Complaint Without Standing Trigger The IPR Time Bar?

by Carl Kukkonen | May 16, 2019 | Time Limits, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen and Amanda Leckman The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will consider, at the behest of 360Heros, whether a complaint alleging patent infringement made by a party other than the patent owner of the patent triggers the § 315(b) time bar.  35...
« 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.