PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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....
No Genuine Issue of Fact Where Petitioner’s Claim Construction Is Wrong

No Genuine Issue of Fact Where Petitioner’s Claim Construction Is Wrong

by David Cochran | May 29, 2018 | Claim Construction, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Sanjiv Laud and Dave Cochran The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c), which holds...
Avoiding Estoppel Is Not Good Cause To Withdraw Grounds After Institution

Avoiding Estoppel Is Not Good Cause To Withdraw Grounds After Institution

by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2018 | CBMs, Estoppel, Motions Practice, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson We recently reported some early observations about possible trends at the PTAB in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu.  See Observations:  Three Weeks After Supreme Court’s SAS Institute Decision.  On...
USPTO Director’s Alleged Conflict Not Imputed to PTAB Administrative Patent Judges

USPTO Director’s Alleged Conflict Not Imputed to PTAB Administrative Patent Judges

by Carl Kukkonen | May 14, 2018 | Motions Practice, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Stephanie Brooker and Carl Kukkonen The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) recently denied a Motion to Dismiss asserting the presence of a conflict of interest of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.  In St. Jude Medical, LLC. v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC, the Patent...
USPTO Holds Webinar to Discuss Supreme Court’s SAS Decision

USPTO Holds Webinar to Discuss Supreme Court’s SAS Decision

by Matthew Johnson | May 4, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics

By: Josh Nightingale and Matt Johnson On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, holding that a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less all claims challenged in the...
« 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.