PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 29, 2024 | Claim Construction, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...
General Plastic Factors Lead to Institution Denial

General Plastic Factors Lead to Institution Denial

by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 8, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited (IPR2023-01219), recently denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent on a lighting system and control for producing cinematic...
Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal

Supreme Court Denies Petition Arguing for Preclusive Effects of PTAB Decisions Pending Appeal

by David Maiorana | Mar 1, 2024 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana – On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360 (Fed....
PTAB Issues Sanctions for Attempted Extortion During “Settlement Negotiations”

PTAB Issues Sanctions for Attempted Extortion During “Settlement Negotiations”

by Lisa Furby | Feb 23, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Owen Carpenter, Lisa Furby, and Dave Maiorana – Director Vidal recently issued sanctions against OpenSky Industries (“OpenSky”) for attempted extortion during settlement negotiations and abuse of the IPR process for US Patent 7,725,759 and awarded $413,264.15...
Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter

Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 2, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sabrina Bellantoni and Matt Johnson – In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by...
Proceed With Caution When Using Wayback Machine® Prior Art

Proceed With Caution When Using Wayback Machine® Prior Art

by John Marlott | Dec 18, 2023 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By John Marlott – Just because a document is archived on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine® does not necessarily qualify it as prior art for an IPR challenge. What is the Wayback Machine®?  The USPTO describes it this way: The Wayback Machine® is a digital...
« 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.