PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Third Party IPRs Sway District Court’s Prevailing Party and Costs Rulings

Third Party IPRs Sway District Court’s Prevailing Party and Costs Rulings

by John Marlott | Jan 2, 2025 | District Court, PTAB News

By Connor Scholes, Daniel Sloan, and John Marlott – Third-party IPRs can moot previously favorable decisions and leave a previously successful party to bear its own costs. On October 16, 2024, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the plaintiff’s Motion to be Confirmed...
New Declarations with a Sur-reply Require Extraordinary Circumstances

New Declarations with a Sur-reply Require Extraordinary Circumstances

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 23, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam Cook and Matt Johnson – In a 2-1 decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied a patent owner’s motion to file two new declarations in connection with its sur-reply, holding that the patent owner failed to prove the extraordinary...
PTAB Reiterates Strict Evidentiary Standard for Printed Publications

PTAB Reiterates Strict Evidentiary Standard for Printed Publications

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 19, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Nicholas D’Andrea and Matt Johnson – The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for a patent directed to geothermal technology.  Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Techs. Inc., IPR2014-00665, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024).  The claimed invention...
PREVAIL Act Passes Committee

PREVAIL Act Passes Committee

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 18, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Levent Herguner, Derek Walker, and Matt Johnson – The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (“PREVAIL”) Act has moved to the Senate for a full vote after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee vote 11-10 on November 21,...
“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 13, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam Cook and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...
Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 11, 2024 | Expert Witnesses, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By James Twieg and Matt Johnson – “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution of...
« 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.