PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Can Evidence of Noninstitution of an IPR be Introduced in District Court? Yes and No

Can Evidence of Noninstitution of an IPR be Introduced in District Court? Yes and No

by Doug Pearson | Jan 18, 2018 | Estoppel, Trial Institution

By Doug Pearson With institution rates of IPR petitions continuing to slide, and with district courts determining (depending on narrow or broad readings of the Shaw case) how estoppel may or may not apply in district court to noninstituted IPR grounds, a natural...
District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

by Doug Pearson | Aug 11, 2017 | Estoppel

By Doug Pearson, Ph.D. Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were presented, but not...
Senate Bill for STRONGER Patents Act Aims to Address Key PTAB Patent Owner Woes

Senate Bill for STRONGER Patents Act Aims to Address Key PTAB Patent Owner Woes

by Doug Pearson | Jul 3, 2017 | PTAB News

By Doug Pearson On June 21, Senators Chris Coons (D-Del), Tom Cotton (R-Ark), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), and Mazie Hironoa (D-Hawaii) introduced a bill entitled the “Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2017” (or...
Estopped or Not? District Court Says No Estoppel for Grounds Not Presented in an IPR Petition

Estopped or Not? District Court Says No Estoppel for Grounds Not Presented in an IPR Petition

by Doug Pearson | Jan 18, 2017 | Estoppel

By Doug Pearson Among the thorny questions for an IPR petitioner is how estoppel may affect invalidity positions asserted by the petitioner/litigant in a parallel district court proceeding, given the grounds of unpatentability asserted by the petitioner in an IPR...
Swearing Behind a Prior-Art Reference Requires “Reasonably Continuous Diligence,” Not “Continuously Exercised Reasonable Diligence”

Swearing Behind a Prior-Art Reference Requires “Reasonably Continuous Diligence,” Not “Continuously Exercised Reasonable Diligence”

by Doug Pearson | Dec 5, 2016 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By Doug Pearson In a decision dated November 15, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-00233, in which the Board found (i) that Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. (“PST”), owner of U.S. Patent No....
« 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.