PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Statistics Through Two Months of FY 2026

PTAB Statistics Through Two Months of FY 2026

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 15, 2026 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson – The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2026 through the end of November (the period from Oct. 1, 2025 through November 30, 2025) stands at 37% (118 instituted, 197 denied).  As expected, this rate is substantially lower than the...
Federal Circuit Holds IPR Estoppel Inapplicable to Ongoing EPRs

Federal Circuit Holds IPR Estoppel Inapplicable to Ongoing EPRs

by David Maiorana | Jan 8, 2026 | Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Erin Bies, David Linden, and Dave Maiorana – On appeal from an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) decision, the Federal Circuit held that a final written decision of an inter partes review (“IPR”) does not preclude the Patent Office from maintaining an ongoing...
PTAB Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations: A New Factor Supporting Institution

PTAB Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations: A New Factor Supporting Institution

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 23, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Ruth Brindel,* Daniel Sloan, and Matt Johnson On November 17, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires issued a memorandum introducing a new procedure allowing petitioners to submit a voluntary Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) that explains the petitioner’s search...
Prosecution Error Evidence & Timing Considerations Sends IPR Forward

Prosecution Error Evidence & Timing Considerations Sends IPR Forward

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 18, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Ruth Brindel* and Matt Johnson The USPTO’s Acting Deputy Director, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision on October 3, 2025, declining to exercise discretion to deny institution in Carbyne, Inc. v. Tritech Software Systems, IPR2025-00959, Paper 11 (Oct. 3 2025)....
USPTO Director Institution Decisions: Back To The Future?

USPTO Director Institution Decisions: Back To The Future?

by John Marlott | Dec 10, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By John Marlott – USPTO Director Squires recently published an open letter announcing that he was “Bringing the USPTO Back to the Future” by assuming responsibility for all IPR and PGR institution decisions.  Why the reference to the 1980s movie recently...
PRECEDENTIAL: PTAB Clarifies Real Party in Interest Analysis

PRECEDENTIAL: PTAB Clarifies Real Party in Interest Analysis

by Carl Kukkonen | Nov 26, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Real Party in Interest

By Carl Kukkonen and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has designated as precedential a decision that squarely reaffirms the statutory requirement to identify all real parties in interest (RPI) in AIA petitions. By elevating Corning Optical...
« 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.