PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Stop What You Are Doing: Collateral Estoppel At The PTAB

Stop What You Are Doing: Collateral Estoppel At The PTAB

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Mar 16, 2018 | Claim Construction, Estoppel, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On March 13, 2018, in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 2017-1193 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit confirmed that collateral estoppel may preclude the need to revisit an issue that had already been resolved against...
Failure To Maintain Correspondence Address Could Be Detrimental To Your Health

Failure To Maintain Correspondence Address Could Be Detrimental To Your Health

by Matthew Johnson | Mar 13, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics

By: Matt Johnson The PTAB rules state that “[t]he petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent.”  37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).  Prompt service is important in IPRs because the Preliminary...
Is The PTAB Bound By A Previous Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

Is The PTAB Bound By A Previous Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

by David Maiorana | Mar 12, 2018 | Claim Construction, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Dave Maiorana In previous posts, we have discussed whether the PTAB and the district courts can reach different conclusions on the same issue.  (See Fed Circ Affirms Conflicting Invalidity Determinations from District Court and PTAB; Can PTAB and Courts Reach...
Tribal Sovereign Immunity Doctrine Does Not Insulate Tribes From Board Actions

Tribal Sovereign Immunity Doctrine Does Not Insulate Tribes From Board Actions

by Joe Sauer | Feb 27, 2018 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Tom Koglman and Joe Sauer In a case of first impression, the PTAB recently decided that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review proceedings.  See Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2016-01127;...
Be Advised: Settlement Does Not Necessarily End An IPR Or PGR

Be Advised: Settlement Does Not Necessarily End An IPR Or PGR

by John Marlott | Feb 21, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics

By: John Marlott The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. For IPRs, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) is entitled “Settlement” and provides, in pertinent part: An inter partes...
The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

The PTAB Chats Designs: And Now, for Something Completely Different

by John Evans, Ph.D. | Feb 6, 2018 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By: Jaime Choi, Tracy Stitt, and John Evans  On February 1, the PTAB held its first “Boardside Chat” of 2018, which featured three judges discussing appeals and AIA trial proceedings for design patents.  Not only are such proceedings less common for design patents...
« 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.