PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 12, 2025 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Mike Lavine – On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether the “Dammann”...
Speculative IPR Discovery Request Not in the Interest of Justice

Speculative IPR Discovery Request Not in the Interest of Justice

by Lisa Furby | Feb 21, 2025 | Discovery, Evidentiary Issues, PTAB Trial Basics

By Lisa Furby and Jim Twieg – “Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....
New Declarations with a Sur-reply Require Extraordinary Circumstances

New Declarations with a Sur-reply Require Extraordinary Circumstances

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 23, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam Cook and Matt Johnson – In a 2-1 decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied a patent owner’s motion to file two new declarations in connection with its sur-reply, holding that the patent owner failed to prove the extraordinary...
PTAB Reiterates Strict Evidentiary Standard for Printed Publications

PTAB Reiterates Strict Evidentiary Standard for Printed Publications

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 19, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Nicholas D’Andrea and Matt Johnson – The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for a patent directed to geothermal technology.  Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Techs. Inc., IPR2014-00665, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024).  The claimed invention...
“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 13, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam Cook and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...
District Court Not Persuaded System Prior Art Evades IPR Estoppel

District Court Not Persuaded System Prior Art Evades IPR Estoppel

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 26, 2024 | Estoppel, Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues

By Dalton Earich,* Matt Modderman, and Matt Johnson – On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent...
« Older 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.