PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
BREAKING: Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Judges Are Unconstituional Appointments

BREAKING: Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Judges Are Unconstituional Appointments

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 1, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

On Thursday, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that PTAB judges have to date been unconstitutional appointments.  The panel thinks that it has cured that issue going forward by severing a portion of Title 35 that allows for removal of PTAB judges only for cause....
Opening a Can of Worms for Design Patent Obviousness?

Opening a Can of Worms for Design Patent Obviousness?

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Oct 4, 2019 | Design Patents, Federal Circuit Appeal

By Kerry Barrett and John Evans Design patent obviousness requires a heavy threshold burden of proof.  Challengers have to find a “primary reference,” i.e., prior art that has “basically the same” design characteristics as the claimed design.  Below is an example of...
Decision to Deny Institution not Reviewable Despite Prior PTAB Trial

Decision to Deny Institution not Reviewable Despite Prior PTAB Trial

by Marc S. Blackman | Sep 4, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Trial Institution

By Marc Blackman In a split decision, the Federal Circuit dismissed three consolidated appeals holding that the PTAB’s decisions to deny institution were not appealable even though the PTAB previously had instituted the IPRs and proceeded through trial.  BioDelivery...
Federal Circuit Tightens Standing Requirements For IPR Appeal

Federal Circuit Tightens Standing Requirements For IPR Appeal

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 6, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Geoff Xiao,* Mike Lavine, and Matt Johnson The Federal Circuit recently tightened the standing requirements for an IPR appeal in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 18-1106, 2019 WL 2079178 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019). AVX previously challenged the validity of...
Federal Circuit says the PTAB used the Wrong Shade of Diligence

Federal Circuit says the PTAB used the Wrong Shade of Diligence

by John Kinton | Jun 4, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By John Kinton As the sayings go, diligence is the mother of good luck, and necessity is the mother of invention.  But for patents that fall under the pre-AIA, first-to-invent, system, proving diligence can be a necessity for invention.  In ATI Technologies ULS v....
Recent Developments on Article III Standing-to-Appeal AIA Trial Decisions

Recent Developments on Article III Standing-to-Appeal AIA Trial Decisions

by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By Jihong Lou and Matt Johnson Update: The Supreme Court has denied cert in RPX v. ChanBond. In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA...
« 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.