PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
USPTO Proposes Expanding Opportunities for Non-Registered Practitioners

USPTO Proposes Expanding Opportunities for Non-Registered Practitioners

by Matthew Johnson | May 30, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Zachary Marshall-Carter, Daniel Sloan, and Matt Johnson – The PTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding who may represent parties in PTAB post-grant trials.  The proposal is part of the USPTO’s wider initiative to expand access to practice...
PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

by Matthew Johnson | May 24, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News

By Lauren Kim and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied 10x Genomics, Inc.’s (Petitioner) IPR petition (IPR2023-01299) against President and Fellows of Harvard College (Patent Owner) challenging claims of U.S. Pat. No. 11,098,303. Patent Owner identified...
En Banc Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

En Banc Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

by John Evans, Ph.D. | May 23, 2024 | Design Patents, Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By John Evans and Jesse Wynn – The en banc Federal Circuit has overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, holding that the Supreme Court’s KSR decision dictated “a more flexible approach . . . for determining non-obviousness.”  LKQ v. GM,...
Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

by Matthew Johnson | May 16, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson –  The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...
Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | May 13, 2024 | Final Written Decisions, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Request for Reconsideration

By Jennifer Chheda and Daniel Sloan – In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found...
USPTO Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Discretionary Denial, Serial and Parallel Petitions, and Settlement

USPTO Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Discretionary Denial, Serial and Parallel Petitions, and Settlement

by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Matthew Johnson, Carl Kukkonen, Evan C. Jones, and Daniel Sloan – On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues.  The Notice addresses stakeholder...
« 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.