PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 17, 2018 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit

In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s treatment of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation as resetting the IPR...
Claim Constructions Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Must be Reasonable

Claim Constructions Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Must be Reasonable

by David Cochran | Jul 23, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit

By: David E. Anderson[1] and Dave Cochran On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118 (“the ’118 Patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330 (“Gnaga”) and Japanese Application No....
Federal Circuit Grants Motion Remanding For Consideration Of All Grounds

Federal Circuit Grants Motion Remanding For Consideration Of All Grounds

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Jul 9, 2018 | Federal Circuit

By: Jen Chheda and John Kinton Following the logic set forth in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Federal Circuit granted Petitioner Adidas AG’s (“Adidas”) motion to remand IPR2016-00921 and IPR2016-00922 to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...
Federal Circuit Continues To Address Transitional IPR Appeals Post-SAS

Federal Circuit Continues To Address Transitional IPR Appeals Post-SAS

by David Maiorana | Jun 26, 2018 | Federal Circuit

By: Dave Maiorana When the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute regarding partial IPR institution, the PTAB estimated that there were several hundred pending IPRs in which the Board had instituted some, but not all, claims and/or grounds.  Similarly, at...
Federal Circuit Grants Rehearing and Remands IPR to PTAB post-SAS

Federal Circuit Grants Rehearing and Remands IPR to PTAB post-SAS

by Geoffrey Gavin | Jun 24, 2018 | Federal Circuit

By: Geoffrey K. Gavin Last week, the Federal Circuit granted, in part, a panel rehearing request and remanded an IPR to the PTAB in view of SAS to address claims that were not initially instituted by the Board. Broad Ocean Tech., LLC v. Nidec Motor Corp., No....
Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

by Marc S. Blackman | Jun 7, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Marc S. Blackman Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is analyzed under different standards by District Courts and the PTAB.  District Courts apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus requiring a patent’s claims, viewed in...
« 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.