PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Appellate Standing Not Precluded By Inability To Maintain Hatch-Waxman Suit

Appellate Standing Not Precluded By Inability To Maintain Hatch-Waxman Suit

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 31, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Pharmaceutical, Standing

By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (the “‘650 Patent”), which is owned by UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”) and is directed to chemical derivatives of a drug for treating urinary...
The PTAB Must Address All Grounds, Even After Final Written Decision

The PTAB Must Address All Grounds, Even After Final Written Decision

by Kenneth Luchesi | Jan 25, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions

By Kenny Luchesi Amazon.com, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Amazon”) filed a petition for inter partes review challenging the validity of AC Technologies S.A.’s (“AC”) U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680.  See IPR2015-01802.  Amazon asserted three grounds of...
Cert Petition Seeks Review of Time-Bar Trigger for Voluntarily Dismissed Complaints

Cert Petition Seeks Review of Time-Bar Trigger for Voluntarily Dismissed Complaints

by Greg Castanias | Jan 17, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News, Time Limits

By Greg Castanias and Doug Pearson On January 11, 2019, Dex Media filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in relevant part). ...
Do Only Certain IPR Petitioners Have Standing To Appeal Adverse PTAB Decisions?

Do Only Certain IPR Petitioners Have Standing To Appeal Adverse PTAB Decisions?

by John Marlott | Dec 28, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By John Marlott – Estimates are that roughly 80% of IPRs involve a challenge to a patent being asserted against the petitioner in a district court litigation.  Typically, in those IPRs, if the litigation-defendant-petitioner loses at the PTAB, there is no...
Clarified: Standing Requirements and Burden Shifting Framework in IPR Proceedings

Clarified: Standing Requirements and Burden Shifting Framework in IPR Proceedings

by David Maiorana | Sep 21, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, Uncategorized

By: Kaitlin Crowder and Dave Maiorana Any person or entity may file an IPR proceeding to invalidate a patent, regardless of whether it faces a specific threat of infringement.  An adverse decision in an IPR proceeding is appealable only to the Federal Circuit. ...
Injury in Fact Required to Bring Appeal from PTAB Decision

Injury in Fact Required to Bring Appeal from PTAB Decision

by Joe Sauer | Aug 15, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By: Patricia Ochman and Joe Sauer On August 3, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd. on the basis that the appellant lacked...
« 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.