PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Design Patents at PTAB – Substantially the Same vs Basically the Same

Design Patents at PTAB – Substantially the Same vs Basically the Same

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jul 30, 2019 | PGR

By John Evans and Kerry Barrett The PTAB’s recent decision instituting post-grant review of a design patent in Man Wah Holdings Ltd. v. Raffel provides interesting perspectives on how design patent invalidity theories work.  This decision highlights the subtle...
Patent Owner Finds The “Achilles Heel” In Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory

Patent Owner Finds The “Achilles Heel” In Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jul 16, 2018 | Final Written Decisions

By: John C. Evans, Ph.D. and Aryane GaransiAchilles Heel Like utility patents, design patent validity can be challenged in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.  Nonetheless, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) tends to reach different results...
Unsupported Assertions: Expert’s Persuasive Authority Suffers Without Directly Engaging Claim Limitations

Unsupported Assertions: Expert’s Persuasive Authority Suffers Without Directly Engaging Claim Limitations

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Feb 15, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses

By: John Evans, Ph.D. and Dave Cochran An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...
The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Feb 6, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Jaime Choi, Tracy Stitt, and John Evans  On February 1, the PTAB held its first “Boardside Chat” of 2018, which featured three judges discussing appeals and AIA trial proceedings for design patents.  Not only are such proceedings less common for design patents...
IPR Proceedings: Extrinsic or Intrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction?

IPR Proceedings: Extrinsic or Intrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction?

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jan 29, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues

By: Joshua Nightingale and John Evans In district courts’ claim construction analyses, intrinsic evidence is of paramount importance.  Although extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court,” it is considered “less significant” than the claim language, specification,...
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.