PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Design Patents at PTAB – Substantially the Same vs Basically the Same

Design Patents at PTAB – Substantially the Same vs Basically the Same

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Jul 30, 2019 | PGR

By John Evans and Kerry Barrett The PTAB’s recent decision instituting post-grant review of a design patent in Man Wah Holdings Ltd. v. Raffel provides interesting perspectives on how design patent invalidity theories work.  This decision highlights the subtle...
Supreme Court’s Interpretation Of The AIA’s On-Sale Bar And Post Grant Review

Supreme Court’s Interpretation Of The AIA’s On-Sale Bar And Post Grant Review

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 28, 2019 | PGR

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson The America Invents Act (“AIA”), also called the Patent Reform Act of 2011, was enacted to overhaul the U.S. patent system and harmonize the domestic patent laws with those in the rest of the world.  The AIA also created new procedures...
PTAB Flushes Airplane Lavatory Patent On On-Sale Bar

PTAB Flushes Airplane Lavatory Patent On On-Sale Bar

by S. Christian Platt | Nov 12, 2018 | PGR, Prior Art Issues

By Christian Platt, John Evans, and Kerry Barrett On October 23, 2018, the PTAB found unpatentable B/E Aerospace’s U.S. Design Patent No. D764,031 (“’031 patent”).  C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., PGR2017-00019, Paper 37 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2018).  The ’031...
Statutory Estoppel Only Applies To The Same Patent Claims

Statutory Estoppel Only Applies To The Same Patent Claims

by Sue Gerber | Apr 3, 2018 | Estoppel, PGR

By: Sue Gerber While claims among patents in the same family can be very similar, such similarities are not enough for the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §325(e)(1) to apply.  In Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, the PTAB interpreted the scope of...
Can PTAB and Courts Reach Different Decisions? Definitely So

Can PTAB and Courts Reach Different Decisions? Definitely So

by John Marlott | Feb 22, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PGR

By Christian Damon and John Marlott In a post last month we explained that the standard applied by the PTAB in post grant proceedings for determining whether claims are sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is more demanding than the standard applied by U.S....
Patent Claims Must Be “Clear” At The PTAB: The Nautilus “Reasonable Certainty” Standard For Claim Definiteness Not Applied In AIA Post Grant Proceedings

Patent Claims Must Be “Clear” At The PTAB: The Nautilus “Reasonable Certainty” Standard For Claim Definiteness Not Applied In AIA Post Grant Proceedings

by John Marlott | Jan 19, 2017 | CBMs, PGR

By John Marlott The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the applicant regards as his...
« 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.