PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

by Sue Gerber | Apr 18, 2025 | Expert Witnesses, Trial Institution

By Sue Gerber – It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that strategy to defeat...
Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 11, 2024 | Expert Witnesses, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By James Twieg and Matt Johnson – “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution of...
Petitioner Mistakenly Ignores Not-So-Optional Claim Limitation

Petitioner Mistakenly Ignores Not-So-Optional Claim Limitation

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 21, 2024 | Claim Construction, Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses

By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently excluded a portion of Duration Media LLC’s (Petitioner) reply declaration for containing improper new evidence in an inter partes review petition filed against Rich Media Club LLC (Patent Owner) challenging all...
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...
PTAB Denies Authorization to Submit Exhibit For Not Following the Rules

PTAB Denies Authorization to Submit Exhibit For Not Following the Rules

by Josh Nightingale | Mar 3, 2023 | Expert Witnesses, Motions Practice

By Ryan Mueller, Sachin Patel, and Josh Nightingale – The PTAB recently granted a joint request to expunge an exhibit and contemporaneously denied the Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a Motion for Leave to Submit the same exhibit in Bausch &...
Experts and Expert Testimony in PTAB Proceedings

Experts and Expert Testimony in PTAB Proceedings

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 27, 2022 | Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses

By Stephanie Mishaga and Matt Johnson – In a recent Boardside Chat webinar, a panel made up of PTAB judges and practicing attorneys discussed the use of experts and expert testimony in American Invents Act (AIA) proceedings.  The panelists stressed that...
« 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.