PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Avoid Adverse Judgment Estoppel

Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Avoid Adverse Judgment Estoppel

by Kenneth Luchesi | Feb 1, 2018 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, Preliminary Responses

By: Kenneth Luchesi In a split decision that drew separate opinions from each of the panel members, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision to enter an adverse judgment against a patentee, even though the patentee had properly disclaimed all of the...
Inherent Obviousness:  Available IPR Rationale With a High Standard

Inherent Obviousness: Available IPR Rationale With a High Standard

by Cary Miller | Dec 8, 2017 | Final Written Decisions

By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On November 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (IPR2016-01096).  The ’061 patent is owned by Alkermes Pharma Ireland, Ltd. and Alkermes Controlled...
SAS Institute Argues Before Supreme Court Against PTAB’s Partial-Decision Practice

SAS Institute Argues Before Supreme Court Against PTAB’s Partial-Decision Practice

by Greg Castanias | Nov 29, 2017 | Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

By Greg Castanias, John Marlott, and Dave Cochran In a closely followed case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SAS Institute Inc., a cross-office, cross-practice Jones Day team has challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice to elect to...
PTAB Disqualifies Reference for Failure to Show Public Accessibility

PTAB Disqualifies Reference for Failure to Show Public Accessibility

by Joseph Beauchamp | Oct 4, 2017 | Final Written Decisions, PTAB Trial Basics

By Albert Liou and Joe Beauchamp The PTAB’s recent final written decision denying a finding of unpatentability in ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC, Case IPR2016-00927, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2017) highlights the importance of obtaining affidavit evidence to prove...
Final Written Decision Not So Final in Eyes of The ITC

Final Written Decision Not So Final in Eyes of The ITC

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jul 25, 2017 | Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

By Christian Damon The ITC recently continued its trend of giving little deference to parallel PTAB IPR proceedings.  In Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, the ITC denied a request to suspend or rescind a...
PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire

PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire

by David Cochran | Jul 21, 2017 | Final Written Decisions

By Jaime Choi Ph.D. and Dave Cochran The patent statute requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The recent case of Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeo LLC...
« 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.