PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denies Parallel IPR Petition

PTAB Denies Parallel IPR Petition

by Kenneth Luchesi | Mar 13, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Owen Carpenter and Kenny Luchesi – The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...
Legislation: Will the Post-Grant Procedures Established by the AIA PREVAIL?

Legislation: Will the Post-Grant Procedures Established by the AIA PREVAIL?

by Kenneth Luchesi | Aug 28, 2023 | PTAB News, Standing, Trial Institution

By Nick Bagnolo and Kenny Luchesi – The Senate recently introduced a bill directed to substantially narrowing the scope of post grant proceedings, including Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  First introduced by a...
PTAB Rules Certificate of Correction is Not Retroactive in IPR

PTAB Rules Certificate of Correction is Not Retroactive in IPR

by Kenneth Luchesi | Feb 21, 2020 | PTAB News

By Kenny Luchesi – On remand from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB ruled that a patentee’s certificate of correction—issued after the Board invalidated the claims in a final written decision—could not be applied retroactively. After the IPR petition was filed, the...
New Theories Not Permitted In IPR Reply Brief

New Theories Not Permitted In IPR Reply Brief

by Kenneth Luchesi | Oct 10, 2019 | Federal Circuit

By Kenny Luchesi In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster L.L.C., No. IPR2016-01435, (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017), the petitioner (HPC) challenged certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,691, owned by HPC’s competitor, Frymaster. The ’691 patent relates to deep fryers, and is...
No Basis For Broad Exclusion Of Inventor Testimony

No Basis For Broad Exclusion Of Inventor Testimony

by Kenneth Luchesi | Jun 17, 2019 | Evidentiary Issues, Trial Institution

By Kenny Luchesi The Board has broad discretion to determine how much weight should be given to inventor testimony, but as long as the testimony does not relate to the inventor’s opinion about the meaning of a claim term, there is no basis for broadly excluding all...
« Older 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.