PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 4, 2024 | Claim Construction, District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district...
Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 28, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News

By Shane Padilla, Matt Chung, Sarah Geers, and Matt Johnson – The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26,...
District Court Charts Middle Ground In Prosecution Bar

District Court Charts Middle Ground In Prosecution Bar

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 15, 2024 | District Court, PTAB News

By Nick Marasco,* Matt Modderman, Matt Johnson – The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently issued a protective order settling a dispute over the scope of a proposed prosecution bar. Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 23-756, Dkt....
IPR Estoppel in Action

IPR Estoppel in Action

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 28, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, Federal Circuit, PTAB News

By Sabrina Bellantoni and Matt Johnson – Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...
PTAB Terminates Institution in Netflix v. ???

PTAB Terminates Institution in Netflix v. ???

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 2, 2024 | District Court, PTAB News

By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”).  Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March...
Reverse Engineered Search Insufficient For IPR/PGR Estoppel

Reverse Engineered Search Insufficient For IPR/PGR Estoppel

by Tom Ritchie | Jan 31, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News

By Tom Ritchie – In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its post-grant review...
« 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.