PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
IDS Initials Insufficient to Show Examiner Did Not Err

IDS Initials Insufficient to Show Examiner Did Not Err

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 4, 2022 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News

By Ibrahim Ijaz,* Evan Jones, and Matt Johnson – On July 6, 2022, a panel of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) administrative patent judges granted institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue...
Reexam References Count In Section 325(d) Analysis

Reexam References Count In Section 325(d) Analysis

by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2022 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Haytham Soliman and Matt Johnson – The Board denied post grant review in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after applying the Advanced Bionics[1] framework as informed by the factors outlined in Becton.[2] ...
Advanced Bionics § 325(d) Activ-ity

Advanced Bionics § 325(d) Activ-ity

by David Maiorana | Dec 23, 2020 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Dave Maiorana and Zach Sharb – On December 7, 2020, the PTAB granted Activ Financial Systems, Inc.’s (“Activ”) petition for inter partes review of claim 43 and 44 of IP Reservoir LLC’s (“IP Reservoir”) U.S. Patent No. 10,062,115 (the ’115 Patent), directed...
PTAB Requests Comments Regarding Discretionary Institution Issues

PTAB Requests Comments Regarding Discretionary Institution Issues

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 20, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson – The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016). ...
Precedential: Declining To Use Discretion Under § 325(d) And § 314(a)

Precedential: Declining To Use Discretion Under § 325(d) And § 314(a)

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 10, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News

By Robby Breetz and Matt Johnson – As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative.  Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On March 24, 2020,the PTAB designated two sections of the...
Decision Kicking PUMA’s Petition Against Nike Designated Informative

Decision Kicking PUMA’s Petition Against Nike Designated Informative

by John Kinton | Apr 3, 2020 | 325(d) issues

By John Kinton and Amanda Leckman – As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative.  Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On October 31, 2019, the PTAB denied PUMA North America,...
« Older Entries

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.