PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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,...
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...
« 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.