PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Petitioner’s Reply May Expand Presented Arguments and Address New Claim Constructions

Petitioner’s Reply May Expand Presented Arguments and Address New Claim Constructions

by David Cochran | Aug 31, 2018 | Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: David Anderson and Dave Cochran On August 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (“the ’831 Patent”) are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  See Ericsson Inc. v....
A Truism that Once Again Bears Repeating: Don’t Wait Until the Last Minute

A Truism that Once Again Bears Repeating: Don’t Wait Until the Last Minute

by Emily Tait | Aug 24, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits

By: Emily Tait A recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denying a petition for inter partes review serves as a stark reminder of the oft-repeated truism, “don’t wait until the last minute.”  See VIZIO, Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC, Case IPR2018-00560...
Practical Tips from the Judges’ Panel at the PTAB Judicial Conference

Practical Tips from the Judges’ Panel at the PTAB Judicial Conference

by S. Christian Platt | Aug 2, 2018 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: S. Christian Platt and Michael Lavine On July 26, 2018, the Silicon Valley Regional Office of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) hosted a Judicial Conference by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  During the conference, a panel of...
Use Caution When Considering Multiple IPRs Against a Single Patent

Use Caution When Considering Multiple IPRs Against a Single Patent

by David Cochran | Jun 11, 2018 | Petitions, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Jason Garr and Dave Cochran The recent PTAB order in IPR2017-01427 is a cautionary tale for petitioners considering multiple IPRs against a single patent.  On May 11, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed the ’1427 IPR petition challenging claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent...
Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

Indefiniteness Standard Applicable in PGRs: Reasonably Certain or Clear?

by Marc S. Blackman | Jun 7, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Marc S. Blackman Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is analyzed under different standards by District Courts and the PTAB.  District Courts apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus requiring a patent’s claims, viewed in...
PTAB Designates Western Digital as Informative of Motions to Amend

PTAB Designates Western Digital as Informative of Motions to Amend

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Jun 1, 2018 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On June 1, 2018, the PTAB announced new guidance on motions to amend in AIA trials. In view of the decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir....
« 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.