PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Failure To Cite Own Prior Art Tanks Patent Owner’s Discretionary Denial Request

Failure To Cite Own Prior Art Tanks Patent Owner’s Discretionary Denial Request

by Mike Lavine | Sep 4, 2026 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Mike Lavine – In Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC, IPR2026-00180 (Paper 15, May 6, 2026), Director Squires denied Sandpiper CDN’s request for discretionary denial of Microsoft’s IPR petition, finding that (1) not all of Microsoft’s challenges...
Federal Circuit Clarifies Prior Art Effective Date Relative To Provisional

Federal Circuit Clarifies Prior Art Effective Date Relative To Provisional

by Charles Kim | Aug 27, 2026 | Federal Circuit, Prior Art Issues

By Charles Kim and Anuja Mehta – The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., vacating and remanding a PTAB final written decision that held Dental Monitoring’s claims unpatentable as obvious....
PTAB Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations: A New Factor Supporting Institution

PTAB Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations: A New Factor Supporting Institution

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 23, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Ruth Brindel,* Daniel Sloan, and Matt Johnson On November 17, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires issued a memorandum introducing a new procedure allowing petitioners to submit a voluntary Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) that explains the petitioner’s search...
Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 28, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Jessie Hess*, Christian Roberts, and Matthew Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940...
Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

by Carl Kukkonen | Jul 9, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned by Agventure,...
Institution Denied for Insufficient Publication Evidence

Institution Denied for Insufficient Publication Evidence

by David Maiorana | May 27, 2025 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues

By David Linden, Ernie Olesky, and Dave Maiorana – On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc....
« 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.