PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
BREAKING: Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Judges Are Unconstituional Appointments

BREAKING: Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Judges Are Unconstituional Appointments

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 1, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

On Thursday, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that PTAB judges have to date been unconstitutional appointments.  The panel thinks that it has cured that issue going forward by severing a portion of Title 35 that allows for removal of PTAB judges only for cause....
Commission Defers to PTAB’s Invalidation of a Single Claim in an Otherwise Blanket Affirmance

Commission Defers to PTAB’s Invalidation of a Single Claim in an Otherwise Blanket Affirmance

by Vishal Khatri | May 1, 2019 | Final Written Decisions

By: Yury Kalish and Blaney Harper – The ITC issued a final determination in a long-running dispute between Sony and Fujifilm.  Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058, Notice Of A Commission Final Determination (March 25,...
PTAB Can Reach Final Written Decision On Challenges Unlikely To Succeed

PTAB Can Reach Final Written Decision On Challenges Unlikely To Succeed

by David Maiorana | Feb 25, 2019 | Final Written Decisions

By Jordan Powers and Dave Maiorana In SAS Institute v. Iancu, the Supreme Court held that when the PTAB institutes inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, it must decide the patentability of all claims the petitioner has challenged. SAS Institute left open the...
The PTAB Must Address All Grounds, Even After Final Written Decision

The PTAB Must Address All Grounds, Even After Final Written Decision

by Kenneth Luchesi | Jan 25, 2019 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions

By Kenny Luchesi Amazon.com, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Amazon”) filed a petition for inter partes review challenging the validity of AC Technologies S.A.’s (“AC”) U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680.  See IPR2015-01802.  Amazon asserted three grounds of...
Indefiniteness Again Leads To Unsuccessful IPR Challenge

Indefiniteness Again Leads To Unsuccessful IPR Challenge

by John Marlott | Oct 18, 2018 | Final Written Decisions, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By T. Kaitlin Crowder, John Marlott, and Dave Cochran The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness).  The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other...
Patent Owner Finds The “Achilles Heel” In Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory

Patent Owner Finds The “Achilles Heel” In Petitioner’s Invalidity Theory

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jul 16, 2018 | Final Written Decisions

By: John C. Evans, Ph.D. and Aryane GaransiAchilles Heel Like utility patents, design patent validity can be challenged in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.  Nonetheless, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) tends to reach different results...
« 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.