PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Denies Patent Owner’s Last-Minute Discovery Request

PTAB Denies Patent Owner’s Last-Minute Discovery Request

by Carl Kukkonen | Aug 16, 2021 | Discovery, Motions Practice, PTAB News, Real Party in Interest

By Carl Kukkonen – In Unified Patents, LLC f/k/a Unified Patents Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (IPR2021-00827), the PTAB denied a patent owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery into any real...
Take Care When Modifying the PTAB’s Default Protective Order

Take Care When Modifying the PTAB’s Default Protective Order

by Josh Nightingale | Jul 9, 2021 | Motions Practice

By Sachin Patel and Josh Nightingale – After an initial denial, the PTAB recently granted Unified Patents’ motions for entry of protective order and for seal in Unified Patents, LLC v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2020-01048, Paper...
Filing Date Motion Granted Due To COVID-19

Filing Date Motion Granted Due To COVID-19

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 23, 2020 | Motions Practice, PTAB News

By Hannah Mehrle* and Matt Johnson – NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc., (Petitioner) who was otherwise barred from pursuing two IPR proceedings regarding patents owned by HandyLab, Inc. (Patent Owner) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year deadline, filed a Motion to Change...
PTAB Grants Rare Request For Live Witness Testimony In IPR

PTAB Grants Rare Request For Live Witness Testimony In IPR

by John Marlott | Dec 3, 2019 | Evidentiary Issues, Motions Practice

By John Marlott – While PTAB proceedings are ordinarily decided “on the papers,” in certain rare cases the Board will permit live witness testimony at the oral hearing. The Board’s precedential decision in K-40 v. Escort explains that “[t]he Board does not...
PTAB Abused Discretion in Denying Request to File Motion for Additional Discovery

PTAB Abused Discretion in Denying Request to File Motion for Additional Discovery

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 6, 2019 | Discovery, Motions Practice

By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying VirnetX’s...
Trial Practice Guide Updates – Discovery, Testimony, Motions to Amend, and Joinder

Trial Practice Guide Updates – Discovery, Testimony, Motions to Amend, and Joinder

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 25, 2019 | Amendment Practice, Discovery, Joinder, Motions Practice, PTAB News

By Catharina Chin Eng and Matt Johnson Our prior post on the PTAB’s second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG), published July 15, 2019, highlighted the additional guidance provided for petitions, patent owner preliminary responses and claim construction. ...
« 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.