PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
Disclaimer Made in IPR Not Binding In Same Proceeding

Disclaimer Made in IPR Not Binding In Same Proceeding

by Sarah Geers | Jan 20, 2023 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Appeal

By Sarah Geers, Ashvi Patel, and Stephanie Mishaga – The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the...
Rosen Set Table For Design Patent Obviousness, LKQ Might Clear It

Rosen Set Table For Design Patent Obviousness, LKQ Might Clear It

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jan 12, 2023 | Design Patents, Federal Circuit Appeal

By John Evans and Josh Gold-Quiros – Big changes to design patent invalidity law may be coming.  A pending IPR appeal challenges the Federal Circuit’s 40-year-old obviousness formula as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s rejection of “a rigid rule that limits...
Coordinate Arguments To Avoid Procedural Bars

Coordinate Arguments To Avoid Procedural Bars

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 15, 2022 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit Appeal

By Dylan Burdelik,* Sachin Patel, and Matt Johnson – In a recent decision, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the PTAB’s decision that estopped a Petitioner from maintaining a third IPR that...
Appeal of IPR Termination Dismissed by Split Federal Circuit Panel

Appeal of IPR Termination Dismissed by Split Federal Circuit Panel

by Carl Kukkonen | May 23, 2022 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Real Party in Interest

By Carl Kukkonen – The Federal Circuit, in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. Guards, Inc., 21-1759, in an opinion by Judge STOLL, dismissed Atlanta Gas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Atlanta Gas filed an IPR which was instituted and...
Christmas Vacate-tion—Petitioners Allowed to Raise Fair Extensions of Petition Arguments

Christmas Vacate-tion—Petitioners Allowed to Raise Fair Extensions of Petition Arguments

by David Maiorana | May 6, 2022 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – Willis Electric Co., Ltd. (“Willis Electric”) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,222,037 (the “’037 Patent”), titled “Decorative lighting with reinforced wiring.”  The ’037 Patent claims a decorative lighting design involving a strand of...
« Older Entries

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.