PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Motion To Strike Invalidity Defense Denied… For Now

Motion To Strike Invalidity Defense Denied… For Now

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 13, 2019 | Estoppel, PGR

By Amanda Leckman and Matt Johnson On February 28, 2019, GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) filed a Complaint against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”), directed to a method for controlling a computer to improve the...
IPR Estoppel Applies Even After A Bench Trial On Validity

IPR Estoppel Applies Even After A Bench Trial On Validity

by Cary Miller | May 2, 2019 | Estoppel, Pharmaceutical

Cary Miller, Ph.D., and Jihong Lou, Ph.D. In a recent decision, a district court in the District of Delaware applied estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to a defendant in Hatch-Waxman litigation, two and half years after the court conducted a bench trial on...
District Court Extends IPR Estoppel To Non-Petitioned Invalidity Grounds

District Court Extends IPR Estoppel To Non-Petitioned Invalidity Grounds

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 12, 2019 | Estoppel

By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted against...
Update: Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?

Update: Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?

by Emily Tait | Feb 20, 2019 | Estoppel

By Emily Tait –  When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid on any ground that...
Combatting Lack of Assignor Estoppel in IPRs (Maybe)

Combatting Lack of Assignor Estoppel in IPRs (Maybe)

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 31, 2018 | Estoppel

By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson – Assignor estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents a party who assigns a patent to another from later challenging the validity of the assigned patent.  As reported in a prior post, the Federal Circuit recently...
Rule 36 Judgment May Support Finding of Collateral Estoppel

Rule 36 Judgment May Support Finding of Collateral Estoppel

by Marc S. Blackman | Dec 21, 2018 | Estoppel

By Marc Blackman –  The Federal Circuit recently affirmed final written decisions in two inter partes reviews by holding that the patent owner was collaterally estopped from relitigating the threshold issue of whether a prior art reference was a...
« 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.