PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Director Review:  PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

Director Review: PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2025 | Discovery, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits

By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson – USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently vacated and remanded three Final Written Decisions from the PTAB.  Semiconductor Components Indus. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-01242, IPR2023-01243, IPR2023-01244, Paper 94...
Estoppel Trumps Substance:  ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

by Matthew Johnson | May 21, 2025 | Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...
Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior Art Grounds

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior Art Grounds

by Matthew Johnson | May 15, 2025 | Estoppel, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Omar Jishi and Matt Johnson – In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid on...
PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

by Matthew Johnson | May 1, 2025 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...
PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 25, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Shane Padilla and Matt Johnson – Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...
« 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.