PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Patent Owner in Standard-Essential Patent Pool Has Standing to Appeal

Patent Owner in Standard-Essential Patent Pool Has Standing to Appeal

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 1, 2019 | Federal Circuit, Prior Art Issues, Standing

By Elizabeth Dengler,* Mike Lavine, Jihong Lou, Matthew Johnson Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,917,772 (“the ‘772 Patent”), which is owned by Infobridge and is directed to encoding and decoding...
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether “All the Expenses” Includes “Attorneys’ Fees”

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether “All the Expenses” Includes “Attorneys’ Fees”

by Greg Castanias | Mar 6, 2019 | Federal Circuit, PTAB News

By Gregory A. Castanias, Daniel Kazhdan, and Jihong Lou As we wrote previously, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc held that a patent applicant can seek district court review of a PTO rejection of its application without having to pay for the time the PTO’s attorneys...
Joined Parties Have Statutory Standing To Appeal

Joined Parties Have Statutory Standing To Appeal

by Jennifer Swize | Feb 5, 2019 | Federal Circuit, Joinder, Pharmaceutical

By: Jennifer L. Swize In Friday’s decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc., No. 17-2088 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that a time-barred petitioner that is joined into a case has an independent right to appeal an...
No Motivation to Combine May Not End the Obviousness Inquiry

No Motivation to Combine May Not End the Obviousness Inquiry

by David Cochran | Feb 4, 2019 | Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By Kait Crowder and Dave Cochran In Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Company, Ltd., the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the PTAB’s findings of patentability in light of several obviousness arguments presented by the petitioner, concluding that the PTAB...
Petitioner’s Reply May Expand Presented Arguments and Address New Claim Constructions

Petitioner’s Reply May Expand Presented Arguments and Address New Claim Constructions

by David Cochran | Aug 31, 2018 | Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: David Anderson and Dave Cochran On August 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (“the ’831 Patent”) are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  See Ericsson Inc. v....
Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Not An End Run Around Cuozzo

Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Not An End Run Around Cuozzo

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Aug 27, 2018 | Federal Circuit, Trial Institution

By: Jennifer J. Chheda, Ph.D and John D. Kinton The Federal Circuit recently denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“PI”) attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus to circumvent the bar in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions...
« Older Entries
Next 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.