PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denies Untimely Request to Stay Pending Reexaminations

PTAB Denies Untimely Request to Stay Pending Reexaminations

by Geoffrey Gavin | Sep 14, 2017 | 325(d) issues

By Geoffrey Gavin In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR proceedings. In a pair of IPR...
PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference

PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference

by Geoffrey Gavin | Aug 15, 2017 | Evidentiary Issues

By Geoffrey Gavin In Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, IPR2016-00809, Paper 65 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2017), the PTAB denied the patent owner’s request for authorization to serve requests for production seeking documents and things related to...
EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly

EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly

by Geoffrey Gavin | May 23, 2017 | Estoppel

By Geoffrey Gavin and Marlee Hartenstein In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017.  No....
Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

Where Party Joined Pending IPRs, Delaware Takes Broad View of § 315 Estoppel

by Geoffrey Gavin | Mar 10, 2017 | Estoppel

By Geoffrey Gavin In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103 based on prior art...
Another District Court Weighs in on the Scope of Statutory Estoppel Under 35 U.S.C. § 315.

Another District Court Weighs in on the Scope of Statutory Estoppel Under 35 U.S.C. § 315.

by Geoffrey Gavin | Jan 27, 2017 | Estoppel

By Geoffrey Gavin In Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-05501-SI, Dkt. No. 319 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) (Slip Op.), Judge Illston in the Northern District of California addressed the scope of statutory estoppel under § 315 in the context...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.