PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
USPTO Director Orders Rehearing Panel Review of Second Denied IPR

USPTO Director Orders Rehearing Panel Review of Second Denied IPR

by Carl Kukkonen | Dec 14, 2023 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By Ben Baek* and Carl Kukkonen – On November 16, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal ordered a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) to review whether the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked certain issues when denying challenger SynAffix B.V.’s petition for inter partes...
Failure to Prove “Prior” Art Results in Denial

Failure to Prove “Prior” Art Results in Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 12, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Pranita Dhungana and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied IPR institution in Sophos v. Open Text because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted reference was, in fact, prior art.  IPR2023-00732, Paper 23 (November 2, 2023)....
Another Bite?  CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply

Another Bite? CAFC Allows Expansion of Arguments in Reply

by Emily Tait | Dec 8, 2023 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Evan Jones and Emily Tait – In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the “newness”...
Error! PTAB Denies Motion for Supplemental Information to Correct Inadvertent Omission

Error! PTAB Denies Motion for Supplemental Information to Correct Inadvertent Omission

by Albert Liou | Dec 5, 2023 | Motions Practice, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Albert Liou and Daniella Paredes – In Nanobebe US Inc. v. Mayborn (UK) Limited et al., the PTAB denied a Petitioner’s Motion to submit supplemental information, even though Petitioner argued the information had been inadvertently omitted in the original...
Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

by Evan McLean | Nov 29, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Evan Jones and Evan McLean – On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487.  IPR2023-00519, Paper 10. The ’487 patent relates generally...
Narrow Stipulation Results in Fintiv Denial

Narrow Stipulation Results in Fintiv Denial

by David Maiorana | Nov 21, 2023 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On March 31, 2023, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (“Zhuhai”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,329,352 (“the ’352 Patent”), assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd....
« 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.