PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Federal Circuit Clarifies Independent Conception Standard for AIA Derivation

Federal Circuit Clarifies Independent Conception Standard for AIA Derivation

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 24, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Kate Meng and Sarah Geers – More than a decade after the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit has issued its first opinion addressing an AIA derivation proceeding. In Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the court clarified that...
Post-filing Activity May Create Privity Leading To Section 315(b) Dismissal

Post-filing Activity May Create Privity Leading To Section 315(b) Dismissal

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 16, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Real Party in Interest, Trial Institution

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Under Section 315(b), an IPR may be dismissed as time barred “if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is...
Navigating the New Discretionary Denial Bifurcated Framework

Navigating the New Discretionary Denial Bifurcated Framework

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 10, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Pranita Dhungana and Matt Johnson – The USPTO recently published a new webpage on the Interim Director Discretionary Process, which provides information regarding the bifurcated process for consideration of discretionary denial issues announced in the March...
Acting Director Reverses Previous Discretionary Denial

Acting Director Reverses Previous Discretionary Denial

by Sarah Geers | Aug 29, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By Adam Cook and Sarah Geers – For the first time under the bifurcated institution procedures, the Acting Director reversed her own prior discretionary denial, citing changed circumstances based on a settlement in the parallel district court litigation.  See Arm...
Institution Denied Based on Parallel Proceeding and Prior Denial

Institution Denied Based on Parallel Proceeding and Prior Denial

by David Maiorana | Aug 22, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On December 6, 2024, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed three separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 (“the ’438 Patent”), which is assigned to Entropic Communications,...
Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 14, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By Jessie Hess,* Pranita Dhungana, and Matthew Johnson – USPTO Acting Director Stewart sua sponte reconsidered and modified a previous Director Review decision that had affirmed cancellation of all 183 challenged claims as a sanction against patent owner...
« Older 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.