PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
PTAB Says Copyright Notice Alone Doesn’t Make Out a Printed Publication

PTAB Says Copyright Notice Alone Doesn’t Make Out a Printed Publication

by David Cochran | Dec 16, 2016 | Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Dave Cochran The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2016-01083, Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, Inc., because the petitioner – Microsoft – failed to establish that a software reference manual that was part of its sole ground of...
Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Decision For Failing To Adequately Explain Its Obviousness Findings

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Decision For Failing To Adequately Explain Its Obviousness Findings

by David Maiorana | Dec 15, 2016 | Evidentiary Issues, Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By Dave Maiorana The Federal Circuit In In re: NuVasive, Inc. vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that NuVasive’s claims are unpatentable in IPR2013-00506.  The court held that it was unable to review the PTAB’s obviousness findings...
Swearing Behind a Prior-Art Reference Requires “Reasonably Continuous Diligence,” Not “Continuously Exercised Reasonable Diligence”

Swearing Behind a Prior-Art Reference Requires “Reasonably Continuous Diligence,” Not “Continuously Exercised Reasonable Diligence”

by Doug Pearson | Dec 5, 2016 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By Doug Pearson In a decision dated November 15, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in IPR2014-00233, in which the Board found (i) that Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. (“PST”), owner of U.S. Patent No....
« 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.