PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...

PGR Eligibility for Patents Issuing from Pre-AIA Examined Applications

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 5, 2016 | Petitions, PGR, Time Limits

US Endotronics, LLC. v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC., PGR2015-00019 Patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013 (“transition applications”), are examined under pre-AIA first-to-invent...

Standard for Indefiniteness in PGR Proceedings – Nautilus or Packard?

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jan 20, 2016 | PGR

In PGR2015-00018, Petitioner Telebrands Corp. filed a petition for post-grant review of claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 (filed September 2014, issued June 2015). In the attached decision, described below, the Board instituted post-grant review, finding that...
Next Entries »

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.