PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

by Carl Kukkonen | Jul 9, 2025 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned by Agventure,...
Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on “Settled Expectations”

Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on “Settled Expectations”

by Anthony Insogna | Jul 8, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Anthony Insogna, Sarah Geers, Matt Hertko, Andrea Jeffries, Gasper LaRosa, Jason Winchester, and Matt Johnson – The Situation: Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review...
Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

by S. Christian Platt | Jun 10, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Stay, Trial Institution

By Sabrina Bellantoni & S. Christian Platt – The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar....
April 2025 Institution Rate Slips Below 45 Percent

April 2025 Institution Rate Slips Below 45 Percent

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 6, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson – The PTAB has published its monthly statistics wrap up for April 2025.  As expected, those statistics show a significant decline in the institution rate compared to the first six months of the fiscal year.  In those first six months, the overall...
Director Review:  PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

Director Review: PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2025 | Discovery, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits

By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson – USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently vacated and remanded three Final Written Decisions from the PTAB.  Semiconductor Components Indus. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-01242, IPR2023-01243, IPR2023-01244, Paper 94...
Estoppel Trumps Substance:  ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

by Matthew Johnson | May 21, 2025 | Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...
« 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.