PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 10, 2022 | Federal Circuit, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Robby Breetz, Christian Roberts, and Matt Johnson – Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”  35 U.S.C. § 311(b)...
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...
No Soup for You! Partial Display Design Patent Found Obvious

No Soup for You! Partial Display Design Patent Found Obvious

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Sep 3, 2021 | Design Patents, Federal Circuit

By Kerry Barrett and John Evans – As with utility patents, a patentee can counter obviousness of a patented design by producing objective evidence that the design was non-obvious, like commercial success, copying, etc.  But to be persuasive, a nexus must exist...
Judge Dyk Says Arthrex Remedy is Unnecessary

Judge Dyk Says Arthrex Remedy is Unnecessary

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 11, 2019 | Federal Circuit, PTAB News

By Nate Andrews and Matt Johnson Judge Dyk and Judge Newman disagree with the Arthrex remedy requiring rehearing.  In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen held the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) was an...
New Theories Not Permitted In IPR Reply Brief

New Theories Not Permitted In IPR Reply Brief

by Kenneth Luchesi | Oct 10, 2019 | Federal Circuit

By Kenny Luchesi In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster L.L.C., No. IPR2016-01435, (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017), the petitioner (HPC) challenged certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,691, owned by HPC’s competitor, Frymaster. The ’691 patent relates to deep fryers, and is...
« Older Entries

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.