PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Unsupported Assertions: Expert’s Persuasive Authority Suffers Without Directly Engaging Claim Limitations

Unsupported Assertions: Expert’s Persuasive Authority Suffers Without Directly Engaging Claim Limitations

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Feb 15, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses

By: John Evans, Ph.D. and Dave Cochran An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...
Not So Common Sense? Reliance on Common Sense to Establish Obviousness

Not So Common Sense? Reliance on Common Sense to Establish Obviousness

by Albert Liou | Feb 13, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues

By: Albert Liou In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that “common sense” can be considered in reaching a conclusion that a claimed invention is obvious.   Since then, both litigants and patent examiners have often...
The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Feb 6, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Jaime Choi, Tracy Stitt, and John Evans  On February 1, the PTAB held its first “Boardside Chat” of 2018, which featured three judges discussing appeals and AIA trial proceedings for design patents.  Not only are such proceedings less common for design patents...
IPR Proceedings: Extrinsic or Intrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction?

IPR Proceedings: Extrinsic or Intrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction?

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jan 29, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues

By: Joshua Nightingale and John Evans In district courts’ claim construction analyses, intrinsic evidence is of paramount importance.  Although extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court,” it is considered “less significant” than the claim language, specification,...
PTAB Denies Request to Submit Supplemental Information on Skill Level of POSITA

PTAB Denies Request to Submit Supplemental Information on Skill Level of POSITA

by Geoffrey Gavin | Jan 26, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Motions Practice, PTAB Trial Basics

By Geoffrey Gavin In a recent decision, the PTAB denied a petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information directed to the level of ordinary skill in the art.  Ooma, Inc. v. Deep Green Wireless LLC, IPR2017-01541, Paper 14...
PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference

PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference

by Geoffrey Gavin | Aug 15, 2017 | Evidentiary Issues

By Geoffrey Gavin In Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, IPR2016-00809, Paper 65 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2017), the PTAB denied the patent owner’s request for authorization to serve requests for production seeking documents and things related to...
« 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.