PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Issues First Post-LKQ Design Patent Decision

PTAB Issues First Post-LKQ Design Patent Decision

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Sep 27, 2024 | Design Patents, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Connor Scholes and John Evans – On August 6, 2024, the PTAB issued its first written decision applying a new test for obviousness of design patents. In Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., IPR2024-00525, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024)...
Petitioners Beware: Screenshots Showing Product May Not Qualify as Printed Publication

Petitioners Beware: Screenshots Showing Product May Not Qualify as Printed Publication

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Sep 18, 2024 | Design Patents, Prior Art Issues

By Connor Scholes and John Evans – In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...
Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

by David Maiorana | Sep 13, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics, Real Party in Interest, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On December 1, 2023, Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. (“Intelligent”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) (“IPR256”), assigned to Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC...
Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 5, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration

By Owen Carpenter and Matt Johnson –  – On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485....
Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 30, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Matt Carey and Matt Johnson – In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports...
LKQ v. GM:  PTAB and Examiner Guidance on Design Patent Obviousness from USPTO

LKQ v. GM: PTAB and Examiner Guidance on Design Patent Obviousness from USPTO

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 19, 2024 | Design Patents, Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues

By John Evans, Jesse Wynn, and Erin Bies* – Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit.  In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling...
« 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.