PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
District Court deference to PTAB regarding priority claim?  Not necessarily.

District Court deference to PTAB regarding priority claim? Not necessarily.

by David Cochran | Jun 9, 2017 | PTAB News

By Jaime Choi and Dave Cochran In instituting IPR of a particular patent, the PTAB found that the patent was not entitled to its priority claim, thus opening it up to invalidity attacks.  However, because the PTAB’s decision was not being challenged in the District...
Eleventh Amendment Revisited – Board Again Finds Sovereign Immunity Applies to PTAB

Eleventh Amendment Revisited – Board Again Finds Sovereign Immunity Applies to PTAB

by Joe Sauer | Jun 5, 2017 | PTAB News

By Josh Sallmen and Joe Sauer Less than four months after its decision in Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated, finding that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applies to PTAB proceedings, the Board has again dismissed an IPR...
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in SAS Institute to Review Board’s Partial Decision Practice

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in SAS Institute to Review Board’s Partial Decision Practice

by Greg Castanias | May 26, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News

By Greg Castanias On Monday, May 22, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee, No. 16-969.  The petition for certiorari, which was filed by Jones Day lawyers Greg Castanias, John Marlott, and Dave...
Secondary Considerations Carry The Day

Secondary Considerations Carry The Day

by David Maiorana | May 19, 2017 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Dave Maiorana We have previously reported (on February 1, on March 1, and on March 30) how patent owners have seen a mixed bag of results in trying to convince PTAB panels that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were sufficient to outweigh a prima facie...
Are Inter Partes Review Proceedings Constitutional? The Federal Circuit Is Not Yet Ready To Decide

Are Inter Partes Review Proceedings Constitutional? The Federal Circuit Is Not Yet Ready To Decide

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | May 16, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By Greg Castanias, Sasha Mayergoyz, and Stuart Yothers On May 11, 2017, with six of its twelve active judges authoring or joining separate opinions, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an initial hearing en banc which asked the full Court to address the question...
USPTO Invites Suggestions for PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative

USPTO Invites Suggestions for PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative

by Joe Sauer | Apr 26, 2017 | PTAB News

By Joe Sauer The Patent Office has announced an initiative to make procedural reforms in an effort to improve PTAB trial proceedings, particularly inter partes review proceedings. As part of this initiative, the USPTO will consider historical data from the last five...
« 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.