PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Speech Recognition Patent Invalidated on Multiple Grounds in CBM Review

Speech Recognition Patent Invalidated on Multiple Grounds in CBM Review

by Emily Tait | Oct 24, 2019 | CBMs, Patent Eligible Subject Matter

By Emily Tait The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Final Written Decision in favor of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) and against Promptu Systems Corporation (“Promptu”) in a covered business method (“CBM”) review of Promptu’s...
Strategic Decision to Forgo Expert Does Not Allow a “Second Bite”

Strategic Decision to Forgo Expert Does Not Allow a “Second Bite”

by Emily Tait | Sep 9, 2019 | Expert Witnesses, Petitions, Trial Institution

By Emily Tait The PTAB recently denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision denying institution of inter partes review, rejecting the argument that the Board’s denial was based on an erroneous analysis of the “non-exhaustive” General Plastic factors.  See...
PTAB Rejects “Real Party in Interest” Challenge to Apple’s Inter Partes Review Petition

PTAB Rejects “Real Party in Interest” Challenge to Apple’s Inter Partes Review Petition

by Emily Tait | Jun 18, 2019 | PTAB News, Real Party in Interest

By Emily Tait – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Final Written Decision in Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., Case IPR2018-00282 (June 4, 2019) (Paper 30), rejecting Uniloc’s argument that Unified Patents (“Unified”) is a real...
PTAB Issues Fifth Installment Of Its Motion To Amend Study

PTAB Issues Fifth Installment Of Its Motion To Amend Study

by Emily Tait | Apr 15, 2019 | Amendment Practice

By Emily Tait On March 13, 2019, the PTAB issued the fifth installment of its ongoing Motion to Amend Study, which tracks and analyzes motions to amend filed in AIA trials through September 30, 2018 (end of Fiscal Year 2018). The data collected by the Board includes:...
Update: Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?

Update: Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?

by Emily Tait | Feb 20, 2019 | Estoppel

By Emily Tait –  When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid on any ground that...
« 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.