PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Decides Concurrent IPR and PGR Petitions After Resolving Priority Date Dispute

PTAB Decides Concurrent IPR and PGR Petitions After Resolving Priority Date Dispute

by Lisa Furby | Feb 20, 2025 | PGR

By Lisa Furby and Anneli Kawaoka – In anticipating a dispute over whether the America Invents Act would apply, Petitioner MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) filed concurrent petitions for both inter partes review and post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441...
PTAB Denies Institution of Maize-Directed PGR

PTAB Denies Institution of Maize-Directed PGR

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 8, 2024 | PGR, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Shane Padilla, Owen Carpenter, and Matt Johnson – On September 24, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding initiated by Inari Agriculture, Inc. (Petitioner) against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Patent Owner). The patent at...
Erroneous PGR Service Deemed Excusable by Split Panel

Erroneous PGR Service Deemed Excusable by Split Panel

by Carl Kukkonen | May 10, 2023 | PGR, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – In DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH et al v. QinetiQ Limited (PGR2023-00003), the petitioner filed its petition on the last possible day in the 9-month statutory period to timely file a petition for post-grant review (PGR).  The certificate of...
Director Provides Insight On Interplay Between Written Description And Enablement

Director Provides Insight On Interplay Between Written Description And Enablement

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 5, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PGR, Trial Institution

By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of a post-grant review and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The petitioner challenged claims 1–27 of the ’274 patent under 35 U.S.C....
A Petitioner’s Guide: Navigating Uncertainty on PGR Eligibility

A Petitioner’s Guide: Navigating Uncertainty on PGR Eligibility

by Josh Nightingale | Feb 28, 2023 | Petitions, PGR, Trial Institution

By Ashvi Patel and Josh Nightingale – Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) recently faced the issue of determining whether U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ‘823 patent”) is a pre- or post-AIA patent.  Hedging its bets, Samsung concurrently filed two petitions—one...
Patent Owner Unable To Dodge PGR Due To Inadequate Written Description

Patent Owner Unable To Dodge PGR Due To Inadequate Written Description

by David Maiorana | Sep 15, 2022 | PGR, PTAB News

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 (“the ’017 Patent”) is assigned to Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell”) and is titled, “Compositions Containing Fluorine Substituted Olefins and Methods and Systems Using Same.”  The detailed...
« Older 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.