PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal

Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal

by David Maiorana | Mar 1, 2024 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana – On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360 (Fed....
Another Bite?  CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply

Another Bite? CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply

by Emily Tait | Dec 8, 2023 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Evan Jones and Emily Tait – In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the “newness”...
PTAB Not Required to Decode Petitioner Arguments

PTAB Not Required to Decode Petitioner Arguments

by David Maiorana | Nov 16, 2023 | Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By Dave Maiorana and Megan McKnelly – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) patentability decisions, holding that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion by not addressing arguments not clearly presented...
Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 9, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions

By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson – In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision had...
Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Standard of Review

Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Standard of Review

by Carl Kukkonen | Oct 30, 2023 | Amendment Practice, Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By Carl Kukkonen and Matt Carey – The Federal Circuit in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, and Stark) affirmed a PTAB decision finding anticipated and/or obvious certain claims of two patents directed to...
PTAB Updates Procedures For Interim Director Review

PTAB Updates Procedures For Interim Director Review

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 7, 2023 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Effective July 24, 2023, the Patent Office updated its procedures for Interim Director Review (“DR”) of PTAB decisions.  The updated procedures include the following key provisions: Expanding the process to permit parties to...
« 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.