by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 24, 2016 | Claim Construction
PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC. In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 2015-1361 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016), PPC appealed the PTAB’s decisions in four consolidated IPRs finding that each challenged claim in three patents...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 18, 2016 | PTAB Trial Basics
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2016). In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 2014-1719 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2016), Nike appealed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2013-00067 to deny their Motion to Amend the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 directed to methods...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 11, 2016 | PTAB Trial Basics
Motions to disqualify opposing counsel often raise difficult issues of legal ethics. Behind any motion to disqualify, two competing interests are implicated: the client’s right to the attorney of its choice versus the need to maintain ethical standards of professional...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 5, 2016 | Petitions, PGR, Time Limits
US Endotronics, LLC. v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC., PGR2015-00019 Patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013 (“transition applications”), are examined under pre-AIA first-to-invent...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jan 29, 2016 | 325(d) issues
The AIA provides PTAB panels a significant amount of discretion in managing their docket, from joinder provisions to the ability to stay or consolidate related, concurrent proceedings in other areas of the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) provides the Board discretion in...
