PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB’s Bait-and-Switch Violated the APA

PTAB’s Bait-and-Switch Violated the APA

by Sarah Geers | Sep 28, 2021 | Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Appeal, Petitions, PTAB News

By Lisa Furby and Sarah Geers – In Baker Hughes Oilfield v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by finding certain instituted claims obvious on grounds it had indicated in its institution that it...
CAFC: Nearly Identical Reference is Prior Art

CAFC: Nearly Identical Reference is Prior Art

by Albert Liou | Sep 17, 2021 | Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By Albert Liou – In the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., No. 2020-1315, 2020-1315, 2020-1379, 2021 WL 3628664 (Fed. Cir. August 17, 2021), the Federal Circuit ruled on an issue that is not often...
Post-Arthrex PTAB Appeals Mostly Moving On From Constitutional Kerfuffle

Post-Arthrex PTAB Appeals Mostly Moving On From Constitutional Kerfuffle

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Aug 11, 2021 | Federal Circuit Appeal

By John Evans, Dave Maiorana, and Steven Nosco* – This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...
Fed. Cir.: Don’t Expect PTAB to Do Your Work For You

Fed. Cir.: Don’t Expect PTAB to Do Your Work For You

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 28, 2021 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Petitions

By Albert Liou – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Microsoft Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, No. 2020-1928 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2021), is a stark reminder that an IPR petitioner must always set forth its grounds in its petition with particularity.  In the...
Most Arthrex Challengers Say “No Thanks” To Director Remand

Most Arthrex Challengers Say “No Thanks” To Director Remand

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jul 19, 2021 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By John Evans, Dave Maiorana, and Steven Nosco* – On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal officer” authority in their final written...
PTAB Details Interim Procedure for Requesting Arthrex Director Review

PTAB Details Interim Procedure for Requesting Arthrex Director Review

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 30, 2021 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By Matt Johnson – On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision.  This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure for requesting...
« 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.