PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
PTAB Designates Two Decisions Declining Review Under § 325(d) as Informative

PTAB Designates Two Decisions Declining Review Under § 325(d) as Informative

by Mike Lavine | Apr 4, 2018 | Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

By: Mike Lavine On March 21, 2018 the PTAB issued a press release announcing that two decisions denying review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are designated as informative: Kayak Software Corp.v. International Business Machines Corp., CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15,...
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...
« 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.