PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 9, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions

By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson – In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision had...
Tactical Decision Leads to Supplemental Information Request Denial

Tactical Decision Leads to Supplemental Information Request Denial

by Lisa Furby | Apr 26, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News

By Jesse Wynn and Lisa Furby – Parties before the PTAB should be careful to submit supplemental materials as soon as practicable. In Extractiontek Sales v. Gene Pools Tech., the PTAB denied a Patent Owner’s motion to submit a deposition transcript from a...
PRECEDENTIAL: Institution Denied Based On Insufficiently Supported Expert Declaration

PRECEDENTIAL: Institution Denied Based On Insufficiently Supported Expert Declaration

by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 7, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses

By Carl Kukkonen – In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) the PTAB denied institution of an Inter Partes Review under 35 USC § 314.  This denial was based on several factors including the declaration of the petitioner’s expert...
Proof of Prior Art Requires Sufficient Corroboration By Credible Evidence

Proof of Prior Art Requires Sufficient Corroboration By Credible Evidence

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 3, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Proof of prior art is an issue that often arises in inter partes and post grant review proceedings before the PTAB.  In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit explained the quantum of proof that is required to establish prior...
Though Not A “Routine Avenue,” Petitioner Permitted To Submit Supplemental Information

Though Not A “Routine Avenue,” Petitioner Permitted To Submit Supplemental Information

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 26, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News

By Ryan Mueller, Sachin Patel, and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently granted Frameless Hardware Company LLC’s (“FHC”) motion to submit supplemental information to its expert’s original declaration in support of institution.  FHC had filed two petitions against...
PTAB Denies Discovery of Draft Declaration

PTAB Denies Discovery of Draft Declaration

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 13, 2023 | Discovery, Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News

By Ashvi Patel, Marlee Hartenstein, and Matt Johnson – On November 18, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges denied a Patent Owner’s Request for Additional Discovery in Twitter, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center Inc., IPR2021-01398.  The PTAB...
« 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.