PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Interprets “By Another” in 35 § 102(e)

PTAB Interprets “By Another” in 35 § 102(e)

by Carl Kukkonen | May 2, 2017 | Prior Art Issues

By Amanda Leckman and Carl Kukkonen In connection with a dispute over parking meters, the PTAB, on March 27, 2017, issued a decision in IPR2016-00067 that Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. (DPT) had not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that...
Unsuccessfully Using the Wayback Machine to Establish Status as a Printed Publication

Unsuccessfully Using the Wayback Machine to Establish Status as a Printed Publication

by Cary Miller | Mar 24, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Prior Art Issues

By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On March 6, 2017, the PTAB issued a pair of final written decisions upholding the patentability of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,932,268 (IPR2015-01836) and 8,618,135 (IPR2015-01835), in challenges filed by the Coalition for...
Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Shine as Primary Consideration in PTAB Decision

Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Shine as Primary Consideration in PTAB Decision

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 1, 2017 | Final Written Decisions, Prior Art Issues

By Matt Johnson While touted by the Federal circuit as “a powerful tool for courts faced with the difficult task of avoiding subconscious reliance on hindsight,” objective indicia of non-obviousness have, to date at the PTAB, been little more than a secondary...
PTAB Denies IPR Request As Failing To Meet Threshold Determination Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

PTAB Denies IPR Request As Failing To Meet Threshold Determination Under 35 U.S.C. § 102

by Carl Kukkonen | Jan 16, 2017 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics

By Kevin Clark and Carl Kukkonen The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently reviewed the threshold necessary to institute a request for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. § 102.  Munchkin, Inc. v. Int’l Refills Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01154 (December 12,...
PTAB Eyes Swear-Behind Evidence with Skepticism

PTAB Eyes Swear-Behind Evidence with Skepticism

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 30, 2016 | Prior Art Issues

By Matt Johnson On December 20th, the PTAB found inventor Seymour Levine’s attempt to rescue certain claims of his patent via a swear-behind declaration unsuccessful.  Boeing Company v. Seymour Levine, IPR2015-01341, Final Written Decision (Dec. 20, 2016).  Mr....
Connecting the Dots:  Anticipation Requires More Than Listing Scattered Claim Elements

Connecting the Dots: Anticipation Requires More Than Listing Scattered Claim Elements

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Dec 26, 2016 | Pharmaceutical, Prior Art Issues

By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On November 30, 2016, the PTAB issued decisions on the institution of inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (the ’061 patent), which relates to formulations for injectable suspensions having increased...
« 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.