PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Relevant Public, Not General Public, When Determining Availability of Printed Publication

Relevant Public, Not General Public, When Determining Availability of Printed Publication

by David Maiorana | Aug 9, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By: David Anderson and Dave Maiorana On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Petitioner GoPro, Inc. failed to establish the public availability of an alleged prior art printed publication.  GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, __ F....
Federal Circuit: “All the Expenses” Does Not Mean “Attorneys’ Fees”

Federal Circuit: “All the Expenses” Does Not Mean “Attorneys’ Fees”

by Greg Castanias | Jul 31, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Pharmaceutical

By: Gregory A. Castanias Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018).  The Court held, by a 7-4 vote (Judge Chen, the former PTO Solicitor, was recused), that if the PTAB rejects a...
Patent Transfer to Native American Tribe Does Not Immunize Patents from Inter Partes Review

Patent Transfer to Native American Tribe Does Not Immunize Patents from Inter Partes Review

by Marc S. Blackman | Jul 26, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By: Marc S. Blackman, Lisa L. Furby, and John Normile The Federal Circuit, in a matter of first impression, has ruled that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Allergan, the maker of Restasis, a chronic...
File It: Motion for Remand in View of SAS Institute

File It: Motion for Remand in View of SAS Institute

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 5, 2018 | Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Appeal

By: Matt Johnson We have previously discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the PTAB cannot institute an IPR on only some of the petitioned claims.  One open question was what the Federal Circuit...
Swearing Behind: Don’t Get Stuck in a Catch-22 of Corroboration

Swearing Behind: Don’t Get Stuck in a Catch-22 of Corroboration

by Emily Tait | May 28, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By: Emily Tait The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrump A/S, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2018) (Moore, joined by Linn and Chen) serves as another reminder to sufficiently corroborate inventor testimony when attempting to swear...
The Supreme Court’s SAS Decision Is Already Affecting Pending Proceedings

The Supreme Court’s SAS Decision Is Already Affecting Pending Proceedings

by David Maiorana | May 3, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By: Dave Maiorana On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, where the Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must issue a final written decision as to any patent claim challenged by an IPR...
« 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.