PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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....
Is The PTAB Bound By A Previous Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

Is The PTAB Bound By A Previous Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

by David Maiorana | Mar 12, 2018 | Claim Construction, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Dave Maiorana In previous posts, we have discussed whether the PTAB and the district courts can reach different conclusions on the same issue.  (See Fed Circ Affirms Conflicting Invalidity Determinations from District Court and PTAB; Can PTAB and Courts Reach...
Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

by Carl Kukkonen | Oct 2, 2017 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen and Amanda Leckman On September 13, 2017, the PTAB, a five-judge panel, granted a petition to institute an inter partes review brought by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) regarding U.S....
PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

PTAB Requires Identification of Structure for Function for Means-Plus-Function Terms

by David Cochran | Aug 25, 2017 | Claim Construction

By Vishal Khatri and Dave Cochran In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the PTAB denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the ‘802...
Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Construction – No Due Process Violations

Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Construction – No Due Process Violations

by Carl Kukkonen | Jun 7, 2017 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Appeal

By Stephanie Brooker and Carl Kukkonen On May 8, 2017, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., 15-1739, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) claim constructions in a non-precedential decision. ...
« 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.