PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Permits “Do-Over” of Motion-to-Amend Briefing Following Aqua Products

PTAB Permits “Do-Over” of Motion-to-Amend Briefing Following Aqua Products

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 27, 2018 | Amendment Practice, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Josh Nightingale and Matthew Johnson In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable.  The decision, issued on...
PTO’s Rehearing Petition in Bosch: Signaling Future Rulemaking After Aqua Products?

PTO’s Rehearing Petition in Bosch: Signaling Future Rulemaking After Aqua Products?

by Emily Tait | Feb 13, 2018 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit

By: Jason Garr and Emily Tait On February 5, 2018, the PTO filed a petition for rehearing of Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol’ns, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 22, 2017).  The petition asks the panel  “not . . . to alter its judgment, but only to clarify a...
PTAB Publishes Aqua Products Guidance Regarding Motions to Amend

PTAB Publishes Aqua Products Guidance Regarding Motions to Amend

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 24, 2017 | Amendment Practice

By Matt Johnson On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance for motions to amend in post-grant trials based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  In line with that decision, the PTAB will not place...
PTAB Provides Glimpse Of What Is Good Cause To Extend Trial

PTAB Provides Glimpse Of What Is Good Cause To Extend Trial

by S. Christian Platt | Oct 30, 2017 | Amendment Practice, PTAB News, Time Limits

By: Christian Platt and Richard Graham The PTAB may, where good cause exists, extend a trial up to six months beyond the required twelve month length pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11).  On October 5, 2017, the PTAB issued its first “good cause” extension of a trial in...
Petitioners Bear Burden Of Proving Claims Amended During IPR Unpatentable . . . For Now

Petitioners Bear Burden Of Proving Claims Amended During IPR Unpatentable . . . For Now

by Greg Castanias | Oct 5, 2017 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit

By Greg Castanias, Jaclyn Stahl, John Marlott, and Dave Cochran In yesterday’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 15-1177 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017) (en banc), the Federal Circuit issued five opinions, spanning 148 pages, addressing the question of who bears...
PTAB Grants Rare Motion To Amend Patent Claim After Federal Circuit Remand

PTAB Grants Rare Motion To Amend Patent Claim After Federal Circuit Remand

by John Marlott | Jul 30, 2017 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit

By Christian Damon and John Marlott Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether each...
« 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.