PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
No IPR Institution Due to a District Court Trial Eleven Months Away

No IPR Institution Due to a District Court Trial Eleven Months Away

by Matthew Johnson | May 30, 2019 | Trial Institution

By Matthew Chung*, Jasper L. Tran, and Matt Johnson Our previous blog post on NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), noted the PTAB’s exercise of its § 314(a) discretion to deny IPR institution,...
Recent Developments on Article III Standing-to-Appeal AIA Trial Decisions

Recent Developments on Article III Standing-to-Appeal AIA Trial Decisions

by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Jihong Lou and Matt Johnson Update: The Supreme Court has denied cert in RPX v. ChanBond. In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA...
PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential

PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential

by Matthew Johnson | May 21, 2019 | Real Party in Interest

By Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one year...
Precedential: PTAB Denies Co-Defendant’s Petitions As Unfair Follow-On Petitions

Precedential: PTAB Denies Co-Defendant’s Petitions As Unfair Follow-On Petitions

by Matthew Johnson | May 16, 2019 | Trial Institution

By Alex Li and Matt Johnson On April 2, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential decision that denied three petitions filed by Petitioner Valve Corporation (“Valve”) to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934 (“the ’934 patent”)...
Petitioner Must Explain Differences Among Five Concurrent IPR Petitions

Petitioner Must Explain Differences Among Five Concurrent IPR Petitions

by Matthew Johnson | May 9, 2019 | Trial Institution

By Alex Li and Matt Johnson On April 22, 2019, the PTAB issued an order that the Petitioner must explain the differences among its five petitions to institute inter partes review over the same patent, and that the Patent Owner may respond as to whether any differences...
« 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.