PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

by David Maiorana | Apr 11, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana – On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds:...
PTAB Terminates Institution in Netflix v. ???

PTAB Terminates Institution in Netflix v. ???

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 2, 2024 | District Court, PTAB News

By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”).  Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March...
Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 29, 2024 | Claim Construction, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...
« 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.