PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Institution Denied Based on Parallel Proceeding and Prior Denial

Institution Denied Based on Parallel Proceeding and Prior Denial

by David Maiorana | Aug 22, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On December 6, 2024, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed three separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 (“the ’438 Patent”), which is assigned to Entropic Communications,...
Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 14, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By Jessie Hess,* Pranita Dhungana, and Matthew Johnson – USPTO Acting Director Stewart sua sponte reconsidered and modified a previous Director Review decision that had affirmed cancellation of all 183 challenged claims as a sanction against patent owner...
Two Week Deadline for PTAB to Issue Notice of Filing Date Accorded

Two Week Deadline for PTAB to Issue Notice of Filing Date Accorded

by S. Christian Platt | Aug 13, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Chris Hodge and S. Christian Platt – On July 18, 2025, Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge for the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), announced that, absent good cause, the PTAB will issue a Notice of Filing Date Accorded within 14 days from...
Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 8, 2025 | PGR, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454.  Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same patent...
Acting Director Clarifies Multi-Petition Policy for Competing Constructions

Acting Director Clarifies Multi-Petition Policy for Competing Constructions

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 5, 2025 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....
Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 28, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News

By Jessie Hess*, Christian Roberts, and Matthew Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940...
« Older 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.