PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

by Matthew Johnson | May 24, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News

By Lauren Kim and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied 10x Genomics, Inc.’s (Petitioner) IPR petition (IPR2023-01299) against President and Fellows of Harvard College (Patent Owner) challenging claims of U.S. Pat. No. 11,098,303. Patent Owner identified...
Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

by Matthew Johnson | May 16, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson –  The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...
Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

by David Maiorana | Apr 11, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana – On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds:...
Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 29, 2024 | Claim Construction, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...
PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

Federal Circuit Affirms Claim Construction and How It Applies

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 8, 2024 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, PTAB News

By Luke Cipolla, Matt Silveira, and Matt Johnson – In Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed two PTAB decisions in IPRs filed by Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PacBio) that...
Disclaimer Made in IPR Not Binding In Same Proceeding

Disclaimer Made in IPR Not Binding In Same Proceeding

by Sarah Geers | Jan 20, 2023 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Appeal

By Sarah Geers, Ashvi Patel, and Stephanie Mishaga – The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the...
« 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.