PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
BREAKING: PTAB Publishes Final Rule Package

BREAKING: PTAB Publishes Final Rule Package

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 8, 2020 | Evidentiary Issues, Expert Witnesses, PTAB News

By Matt Johnson – On December 8th, the PTAB published a Final Rule, formalizing a number of PTAB practices dictated by case law and described in the current Trial Practice Guide.  The one substantive change of note is the removal to deference to the...
A Compelling Decision – Board Addresses Scope Of Work Product Protection

A Compelling Decision – Board Addresses Scope Of Work Product Protection

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 24, 2020 | Discovery, Expert Witnesses

By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson – In a series of IPR proceedings between Petitioner Adobe Inc. and Patent Owner RAH Color Technologies LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to extend attorney work product protection to deposition questions...
Strategic Decision to Forgo Expert Does Not Allow a “Second Bite”

Strategic Decision to Forgo Expert Does Not Allow a “Second Bite”

by Emily Tait | Sep 9, 2019 | Expert Witnesses, Petitions, Trial Institution

By Emily Tait The PTAB recently denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision denying institution of inter partes review, rejecting the argument that the Board’s denial was based on an erroneous analysis of the “non-exhaustive” General Plastic factors.  See...
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...
Handling Improper Coaching of Witnesses During PTAB Deposition Proceedings

Handling Improper Coaching of Witnesses During PTAB Deposition Proceedings

by Joseph Beauchamp | Aug 21, 2017 | Expert Witnesses

By Joe Beauchamp Many attorneys have encountered an opposing party’s witness that provides very concise, supportive responses to the questions of the witness’s own attorney after a recess in a deposition. Often, these helpful responses occur during re-direct of the...
Failure to Make IPR Declarant Available for Deposition May Result in Exclusion

Failure to Make IPR Declarant Available for Deposition May Result in Exclusion

by David Maiorana | Jan 24, 2017 | Expert Witnesses

By Dave Maiorana Although this seems pretty obvious, failure to make an IPR declarant available for deposition likely will cause the Board to exclude the declarant’s testimony from the trial, absent agreement of the parties or special circumstances.  In 1964 Ears,...
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.