PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Claim Constructions Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Must be Reasonable

Claim Constructions Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Must be Reasonable

by David Cochran | Jul 23, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit

By: David E. Anderson[1] and Dave Cochran On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118 (“the ’118 Patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330 (“Gnaga”) and Japanese Application No....
Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

by Marc S. Blackman | Jun 7, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Marc S. Blackman Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is analyzed under different standards by District Courts and the PTAB.  District Courts apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus requiring a patent’s claims, viewed in...
No Genuine Issue of Fact Where Petitioner’s Claim Construction Is Wrong

No Genuine Issue of Fact Where Petitioner’s Claim Construction Is Wrong

by David Cochran | May 29, 2018 | Claim Construction, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Sanjiv Laud and Dave Cochran The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c), which holds...
Proposed Rule: No More BRI in PTAB Trials

Proposed Rule: No More BRI in PTAB Trials

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | May 8, 2018 | Claim Construction, PTAB News

By: Rich Graham and Matt Johnson Today, the USPTO issued a press release announcing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Claim Construction Standards used in PTAB Proceedings.[1] The rule proposed by the Office would change the prior policy of using the Broadest...
Stop What You Are Doing: Collateral Estoppel At The PTAB

Stop What You Are Doing: Collateral Estoppel At The PTAB

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Mar 16, 2018 | Claim Construction, Estoppel, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On March 13, 2018, in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 2017-1193 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit confirmed that collateral estoppel may preclude the need to revisit an issue that had already been resolved against...
PTAB Reversed For Giving Process Step In Product Claims No Weight

PTAB Reversed For Giving Process Step In Product Claims No Weight

by Joseph Beauchamp | Mar 13, 2018 | Claim Construction

By: Mike Lavine and Joe Beauchamp process step in product claims Whether a process step in product claims is afforded patentable weight has been an issue gaining more attention recently.  The Federal Circuit weighs in on the topic in In re Nordt Dev. Co., LLC, No....
« 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.