PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denies Institution Of Follow-On Petition From Similarly Situated Defendant

PTAB Denies Institution Of Follow-On Petition From Similarly Situated Defendant

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 10, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics

By: Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00761, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018), the PTAB denied institution of Shenzhen Silver Star’s IPR petition in view of an earlier challenge to the same patent by a...
Petitioners Be Mindful Of Decisions In Related IPRs

Petitioners Be Mindful Of Decisions In Related IPRs

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 3, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics

By: Susan M. Gerber and Matt Johnson In a recent PTAB decision, Petitioners learned the importance of addressing decisions from related IPRs when making arguments before the PTAB.  Apple, Inc. and FitBit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017-00319 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2018)...
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 30, 2018 | Time Limits

By: Alex K. Chung Ph.D. and Matt Johnson In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the one-year...
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 17, 2018 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit

In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s treatment of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation as resetting the IPR...
PTAB Issues Fourth Installment Of Its Motion To Amend Study

PTAB Issues Fourth Installment Of Its Motion To Amend Study

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 14, 2018 | Amendment Practice, PTAB News

By: Matt Johnson On Monday, the PTAB issued its fourth installment of its ongoing motion to amend study, providing details on motions to amend filed and decided through March 31, 2018.  Patent owners have filed a motion to amend in 305 of the 3,203 completed trials...
« 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.