PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Explanations, Not Bare Citations, Needed To Establish Prior Art Date

Explanations, Not Bare Citations, Needed To Establish Prior Art Date

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 24, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Ernie Oleksy,* Robby Breetz, and Matt Johnson – Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and...
PTAB Denial of Inter Partes Review under §325(d)

PTAB Denial of Inter Partes Review under §325(d)

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 18, 2023 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Mike Lavine, Aska Fujimori-Smith,* Jetta Cook, and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently denied inter partes review (IPR) of an electrocardiography monitor patent under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding that the same or...
Provisional Describes “Incompressible Solid” Despite Disclosure Of “Little” Compression

Provisional Describes “Incompressible Solid” Despite Disclosure Of “Little” Compression

by Albert Liou | Aug 1, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Albert Liou – In a recent decision denying institution, the PTAB rejected Petitioner Mercedes Benz USA’s argument that the challenged patent was not entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.  Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems...
Existence != Access – Public Accessibility Must be Clear

Existence != Access – Public Accessibility Must be Clear

by Joseph Beauchamp | Jul 6, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Alison Ibendahl and Joe Beauchamp – In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board denied institution of inter partes review after holding that Petitioner Microsoft’s key obviousness reference did not qualify as a printed publication.  Microsoft...
Panel Grants Rehearing and Reverses Itself On Patentability

Panel Grants Rehearing and Reverses Itself On Patentability

by Lisa Furby | Feb 9, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, Request for Reconsideration

By Ryan Mueller and Lisa Furby – On January 10, 2023, a PTAB panel granted a Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of Final Written Decision and, contemporaneously, issued a revised Final Written Decision in Unified Patents, LLC, v. 2BCom, LLC, IPR2020-00996,...
Proof of Prior Art Requires Sufficient Corroboration By Credible Evidence

Proof of Prior Art Requires Sufficient Corroboration By Credible Evidence

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 3, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Proof of prior art is an issue that often arises in inter partes and post grant review proceedings before the PTAB.  In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit explained the quantum of proof that is required to establish prior...
« 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.