PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Designates Precedential Decision Relating to Infringer’s Civil Action Barring IPR

PTAB Designates Precedential Decision Relating to Infringer’s Civil Action Barring IPR

by Geoffrey Gavin | Sep 12, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Standing

By Geoffrey Gavin and Matt Johnson The PTAB designated as precedential a January 2019 panel decision relating to the bar on instituting an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) when the petitioner previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of the patent.  See...
IPR Time Bar Triggered Even If Party Serving Complaint Lacks Standing

IPR Time Bar Triggered Even If Party Serving Complaint Lacks Standing

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 27, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits

By Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving party lacks...
Trial Practice Guide Updates – Multiple Petitions, Claim Construction, and PO Testimonial Evidence

Trial Practice Guide Updates – Multiple Petitions, Claim Construction, and PO Testimonial Evidence

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 23, 2019 | Amendment Practice, Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Catharina Chin Eng and Matt Johnson On July 15, 2019, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG) (“2nd Update”), providing additional guidance for trial practice before the Board. The original...
No Institution When Petition Lacked Sufficient Specificity

No Institution When Petition Lacked Sufficient Specificity

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 5, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson Petitioners beware.  The PTAB will not “play archaeologist with the record” or assume the burden of making arguments if the Petitioner fails to present the asserted reasons for invalidity with the required specificity.  Amazon Web...
PTAB Denies Entire IPR Petition as Voluminous and Excessive

PTAB Denies Entire IPR Petition as Voluminous and Excessive

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 3, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review of Perfect Company’s (“Patent Owner”) patent.  Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596 (March 6, 2019).  A panel of...
Precedential: Live Testimony Not Permitted Absent Prior Declaration

Precedential: Live Testimony Not Permitted Absent Prior Declaration

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 1, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics

By Kenny Luchesi In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing.  In DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. v. MedIdeam LLC, Case...
« 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.