PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Precedential: Two-Part Framework for Applying § 325(d)

Precedential: Two-Part Framework for Applying § 325(d)

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 31, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News

By Josh Nightingale 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 a first of the precedential designated decisions. On March 24, 2020, the PTAB...
PTAB Designates Two §325(d) Opinions Precedential, One Informative

PTAB Designates Two §325(d) Opinions Precedential, One Informative

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 30, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News

By Matt Johnson – Last week, the PTAB designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative.  These cases discuss the Board’s process for deciding when to use their discretion to deny institution because a Petition raises issues that the...
Same or Similar Art Mutes IPR Petition on Medical Device Patent

Same or Similar Art Mutes IPR Petition on Medical Device Patent

by David Cochran | Feb 19, 2020 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Dave Cochran – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) gives the PTAB discretion to deny a petition for inter partes review when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously before the Office – including during original examination, reexamination, or...
325(d) And Printed Publication Issues Doom Petition

325(d) And Printed Publication Issues Doom Petition

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Aug 21, 2019 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues

By John Evans and Dave Cochran The most persuasive IPR petitions offer fresh unpatentability theories never considered before.  But petitions that simply repackage old issues often don’t gain traction.  So, when you’re citing prior art that was before the Examiner...
Precedential: PTAB Considers § 314(a) Factors Even When Denying Under § 325(d)

Precedential: PTAB Considers § 314(a) Factors Even When Denying Under § 325(d)

by Gasper LaRosa | May 13, 2019 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Gasper LaRosa When exercising its broad discretion on whether to institute review, the PTAB is not limited to consideration of factors associated with the type of denial it ultimately issues.  In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the PTAB...
SCOTUS Rejects Petition To Review Section 325(d)

SCOTUS Rejects Petition To Review Section 325(d)

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 3, 2018 | 325(d) issues

By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a petition to review the PTAB’s refusal to deny IPR institution under § 325(d), in a case where the challenged patent had survived several previous validity...
« Older Entries
Next 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.