PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denial of Inter Partes Review under §325(d)

PTAB Denial of Inter Partes Review under §325(d)

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 18, 2023 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Mike Lavine, Aska Fujimori-Smith,* Jetta Cook, and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently denied inter partes review (IPR) of an electrocardiography monitor patent under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding that the same or...
Director Determines Petitioner Not Expected to Anticipate § 325(d) Argument

Director Determines Petitioner Not Expected to Anticipate § 325(d) Argument

by David Maiorana | May 1, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News

By David Linden, Dave Maiorana, and Marc Blackman – Director Vidal recently vacated a decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) to allow Google, the Petitioner, to brief whether discretionary denial was warranted under Section 325(d) in view...
Director Provides Insight On Interplay Between Written Description And Enablement

Director Provides Insight On Interplay Between Written Description And Enablement

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 5, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PGR, Trial Institution

By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of a post-grant review and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The petitioner challenged claims 1–27 of the ’274 patent under 35 U.S.C....
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...
« 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.