PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Motion to Exclude Improper Vehicle For Addressing Non-Responsive Evidence

Motion to Exclude Improper Vehicle For Addressing Non-Responsive Evidence

by David Maiorana | Sep 23, 2021 | Evidentiary Issues, Motions Practice

By Lisa Furby and Dave Maiorana – In Apple, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (IPR2020-00686), the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s motion to exclude portions of the Petitioner’s supplemental expert declaration.  Here the Patent Owner sought to exclude a number of...
In Your Dreams – Additional PTAB Discovery Remains Elusive

In Your Dreams – Additional PTAB Discovery Remains Elusive

by David Maiorana | May 11, 2021 | Discovery, Evidentiary Issues

By Dave Maiorana and Bobby Karl – Discovery in an IPR proceeding is limited compared to district court litigation in order to focus the proceedings and promote speed and efficiency.  The PTAB Practice Guide and 37 C.F.R 42.51 provide for three types of...
Institution Mandamus Review Limited to Colorable Constitution Claims

Institution Mandamus Review Limited to Colorable Constitution Claims

by David Maiorana | Mar 25, 2021 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Trial Institution, Uncategorized

By Robby Breetz and Dave Maiorana – In Mylan Labs Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed it lacked jurisdiction over appeals from the PTAB denying IPR institution, noted that it had jurisdiction over requests for mandamus, but that...
Advanced Bionics § 325(d) Activ-ity

Advanced Bionics § 325(d) Activ-ity

by David Maiorana | Dec 23, 2020 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Dave Maiorana and Zach Sharb – On December 7, 2020, the PTAB granted Activ Financial Systems, Inc.’s (“Activ”) petition for inter partes review of claim 43 and 44 of IP Reservoir LLC’s (“IP Reservoir”) U.S. Patent No. 10,062,115 (the ’115 Patent), directed...
Invalidity Counter Against Unasserted Claim Does Not Implicate §315(a)

Invalidity Counter Against Unasserted Claim Does Not Implicate §315(a)

by David Maiorana | Oct 15, 2020 | PTAB Trial Basics, Standing

By Dave Maiorana – It is well-established that a counterclaim for invalidity in a district court litigation does not trigger the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) bar.  See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(3).  See also our previous posts here and here discussing strategies for declaratory...
« 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.