PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
How Does the PTAB Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a)?

How Does the PTAB Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a)?

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 1, 2020 | Trial Institution

By Alex Li and Matt Johnson The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR).  Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing district court...
Black Box Structure Insufficient for MPF Element

Black Box Structure Insufficient for MPF Element

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 26, 2020 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution

By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson – In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the ʼ740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...
PTAB Releases Update to Motion to Amend Study

PTAB Releases Update to Motion to Amend Study

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 21, 2020 | Amendment Practice

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has published the sixth installment of its Motion to Amend Study. The study tracks and analyzes all motions to amend filed in America Invents Act trials, including pilot motions, through the end of March 2020. This installment...
PTAB Holds Mock Oral Arguments for LEAP Attorneys

PTAB Holds Mock Oral Arguments for LEAP Attorneys

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 19, 2020 | PTAB News

By Robert M. Breetz, Stephanie M. Brooker, and Matt Johnson – Holding its first mock oral arguments, the PTAB provided LEAP eligible participants with a unique opportunity to argue in front of PTAB judges.  On August 7, 2020, mock oral PTAB hearings were held...
PTAB Designates Fintive Factor Decisions Informative

PTAB Designates Fintive Factor Decisions Informative

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 5, 2020 | Trial Institution

In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality when a patent owner raises an...
« 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.