PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

by Mike Lavine | May 16, 2025 | District Court, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Mike Lavine – On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., Dell...
Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior Art Grounds

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior Art Grounds

by Matthew Johnson | May 15, 2025 | Estoppel, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Omar Jishi and Matt Johnson – In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid on...
PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

by Carl Kukkonen | May 8, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These decisions—IPR2024-01475 and...
INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case

INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case

by David Maiorana | May 7, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden, Dave Maiorana, and Sue Gerber – On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”).  The...
PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 25, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Shane Padilla and Matt Johnson – Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...
Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 8, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Ernie Oleksy and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...
« 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.