PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Shifting Burden Dooms Patent Owner

Shifting Burden Dooms Patent Owner

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 14, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Final Written Decisions, Prior Art Issues

By Hailey Stewart,* Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology,...
Director Vidal Reels In Discretionary Denials Under Section 314(a)

Director Vidal Reels In Discretionary Denials Under Section 314(a)

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 4, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.  In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent was...
Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | May 13, 2024 | Final Written Decisions, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Request for Reconsideration

By Jennifer Chheda and Daniel Sloan – In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found...
Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

by Matthew Johnson | May 10, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, Request for Reconsideration

By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson – On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...
Common Ownership Exception Leads to Petition Denial

Common Ownership Exception Leads to Petition Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 25, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied Trend Micro, Inc.’s (Petitioner) inter partes review petition against Open Text, Inc. and Webroot, Inc. (Patent Owners) challenging all claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,201,243. Trend Micro, Inc. v. Open Text,...
“Known” Claim Elements Alone Insufficient for Motivation to Combine

“Known” Claim Elements Alone Insufficient for Motivation to Combine

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 19, 2024 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Phil Shelton, Sue Gerber, and Matt Johnson – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as...
« 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.