PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims, Kind Of

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims, Kind Of

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Apr 7, 2017 | Amendment Practice, Pharmaceutical

By Lisamarie LoGiudice, Ph.D. and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLC, IPR2015-02009 (March 31, 2017), the PTAB granted Shire’s Motion to Amend the claims in U.S. Reissued Patent RE 42,096, listed in the FDA’s Orange Book as...
PTAB Invalidates Multiple Claims of Patent for Treating Anemia with Iron Carbohydrate Complexes and Denies Motion to Amend Claims

PTAB Invalidates Multiple Claims of Patent for Treating Anemia with Iron Carbohydrate Complexes and Denies Motion to Amend Claims

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jan 13, 2017 | Amendment Practice, Pharmaceutical

By J. Jason Williams and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On January 4, 2017, in a final written decision in IPR2015-01490, the PTAB found 17 claims of a patent directed to methods of treating iron disorders by administering certain iron carbohydrate complexes were...
En Banc Federal Circuit Hears Arguments Concerning Claim Amendments In Post-Grant Proceedings: In re: Aqua Products

En Banc Federal Circuit Hears Arguments Concerning Claim Amendments In Post-Grant Proceedings: In re: Aqua Products

by John Marlott | Dec 13, 2016 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit Appeal

By John Marlott As we reported earlier (link), the en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering two important questions involving the PTO’s rules for claim amendments and the PTAB’s handling of motions to amend during IPR proceedings, In re: Aqua Products, Inc.,...
En Banc Federal Circuit Considering The Ground Rules For Claim Amendments In Post-Grant Proceedings: In re: Aqua Products

En Banc Federal Circuit Considering The Ground Rules For Claim Amendments In Post-Grant Proceedings: In re: Aqua Products

by John Marlott | Nov 8, 2016 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit Appeal

By John Marlott Claim amendments in IPRs are statutorily authorized by the AIA. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1) provides that “[d]uring an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following...

PTAB Grants ContentGuard’s Motion to Amend and Finds Amended Claim Substantially Identical for Purposes of Intervening Rights

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jul 5, 2016 | Amendment Practice

On June 21, 2016, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in CBM2015-00040 (consolidated with CBM2015-00160) where both Google and Apple challenged the patentability of ContentGuard’s U.S. Patent No. 7,774,280, entitled “System and Method for Managing...

Motion To Amend: Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc., et al. vs. The Tire Hanger Corporation (IPR2015-00208)

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Apr 29, 2016 | Amendment Practice

On April 22, 2016, the PTAB granted a motion to amend for only the sixth time since institution of the AIA in its decision of Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc., et al. vs. The Time Hanger Corporation (IPR2015-00208, Paper 24).  The patent at issue relates to “a method...
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.