PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Fed. Cir. Reaffirms No State Sovereign Immunity in IPRs

Fed. Cir. Reaffirms No State Sovereign Immunity in IPRs

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 17, 2020 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson – In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed that state universities cannot use sovereign immunity to avoid patent challenges at the PTAB stating that, “sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR...
Invalidity Counter Against Unasserted Claim Does Not Implicate §315(a)

Invalidity Counter Against Unasserted Claim Does Not Implicate §315(a)

by David Maiorana | Oct 15, 2020 | PTAB Trial Basics, Standing

By Dave Maiorana – It is well-established that a counterclaim for invalidity in a district court litigation does not trigger the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) bar.  See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(3).  See also our previous posts here and here discussing strategies for declaratory...
PTO Proposes PTAB POPR Presumption Principle Permutation

PTO Proposes PTAB POPR Presumption Principle Permutation

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 2, 2020 | Evidentiary Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Christian Roberts* and Matt Johnson – On May 27, 2020, the USPTO announced a notice of proposed rulemaking that would affect IPR, PGR and CBM proceedings.  Most significantly, the proposed rules would eliminate the presumption in favor of petitioners for...
MPF – Corresponding Structure = Trouble For Petitioners

MPF – Corresponding Structure = Trouble For Petitioners

by John Marlott | Apr 20, 2020 | Claim Construction, PTAB Trial Basics

By John Marlott – Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,...
Court Allows Accused Infringer’s Have-Cake, Eat-Cake Patent Invalidity Strategy

Court Allows Accused Infringer’s Have-Cake, Eat-Cake Patent Invalidity Strategy

by John Marlott | Apr 16, 2020 | PTAB Trial Basics, Standing

By John Marlott – While acknowledging an “apparent loophole” in the America Invents Act, a district court has permitted an accused-infringer-DJ-plaintiff to pursue counterclaims for patent invalidity—with no bar on later seeking an IPR at the PTAB. Epic Games,...
CAFC Holds PTAB May Not Cancel Claims For Indefiniteness In An IPR

CAFC Holds PTAB May Not Cancel Claims For Indefiniteness In An IPR

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 18, 2020 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear:  “[W]e hold that the Board may...
« 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.