PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Clarified: Standing Requirements and Burden Shifting Framework in IPR Proceedings

Clarified: Standing Requirements and Burden Shifting Framework in IPR Proceedings

by David Maiorana | Sep 21, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, Uncategorized

By: Kaitlin Crowder and Dave Maiorana Any person or entity may file an IPR proceeding to invalidate a patent, regardless of whether it faces a specific threat of infringement.  An adverse decision in an IPR proceeding is appealable only to the Federal Circuit. ...
Relevant Public, Not General Public, When Determining Availability of Printed Publication

Relevant Public, Not General Public, When Determining Availability of Printed Publication

by David Maiorana | Aug 9, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By: David Anderson and Dave Maiorana On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Petitioner GoPro, Inc. failed to establish the public availability of an alleged prior art printed publication.  GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, __ F....
No Showing that Conference Poster Constituted a Printed Publication

No Showing that Conference Poster Constituted a Printed Publication

by Doug Pearson | Jun 28, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues

By: Doug Pearson With the universe of prior art available for IPRs being limited to patents and printed publications (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), questions regarding the applicability of printed material that might be considered less mainstream prior art are sure to arise. ...
Swearing Behind: Don’t Get Stuck in a Catch-22 of Corroboration

Swearing Behind: Don’t Get Stuck in a Catch-22 of Corroboration

by Emily Tait | May 28, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By: Emily Tait The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrump A/S, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2018) (Moore, joined by Linn and Chen) serves as another reminder to sufficiently corroborate inventor testimony when attempting to swear...
It’s Obvious: POSA Could Write Software To Generate Conference Call Requests

It’s Obvious: POSA Could Write Software To Generate Conference Call Requests

by Tim Heverin | Apr 20, 2018 | Prior Art Issues

By: Tom Ritchie and Tim Heverin A recent PTAB decision underscores the importance of establishing the level of ordinary skill for a successful obviousness challenge.  Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-00058, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2018).  It is well...
Prior Art Chemical Structures Must Be More Than A “Code Name”

Prior Art Chemical Structures Must Be More Than A “Code Name”

by Cary Miller | Apr 18, 2018 | Prior Art Issues

By: Cary Miller, Ph.D. The PTAB recently rejected a request for rehearing by Bayer CropScience LP (“Bayer”).  Bayer Cropscience LP, v. Syngenta Limited, IPR2017-01332, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2018).[1]  The PTAB stated that when the prior art does not identify the...
« 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.