PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
Availability of Document on Government Website Insufficient for Institution

Availability of Document on Government Website Insufficient for Institution

by Lisa Furby | Apr 12, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Lisa Furby – In denying inter partes review in OBM, Inc. & Cholla Energy LLC v. Lancium LLC, the PTAB again made clear that “technical availability” of a reference is not enough to establish it is a printed publication.  Here, the PTAB held that the...
Federal Circuit Slices PTAB’s Printed Publication Finding

Federal Circuit Slices PTAB’s Printed Publication Finding

by Carl Kukkonen | Feb 28, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Jareli Reynoso Gutierrez and Carl Kukkonen – Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed one and vacated another Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in which the PTAB determined that Weber Inc. (“Weber”) failed to...
PRECEDENTIAL – Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

PRECEDENTIAL – Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

by Bill Devitt | Feb 1, 2024 | Petitions, Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Connor Scholes, Owen Carpenter, Bill Devitt, and Dave Maiorana – In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be...
« 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.