by David Maiorana | May 19, 2017 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Dave Maiorana We have previously reported (on February 1, on March 1, and on March 30) how patent owners have seen a mixed bag of results in trying to convince PTAB panels that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were sufficient to outweigh a prima facie...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | May 12, 2017 | Preliminary Responses, PTAB Trial Basics
In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-04700-EMC,...
by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 28, 2017 | PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits
By Yury Kalish Ph.D. and Carl Kukkonen See also, Jones Day ITC Blog’s posting on the Bosch case at: http://jonesdayitcblog.com/clock-file-ipr/ Since their introduction as part of the America Invents Act, Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) have proven to be a powerful...
by Cary Miller | Mar 15, 2017 | PTAB Trial Basics
By Raffaella Faraoni, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On March 3, 2017, in a final written decision in IPR2015-01838, the PTAB rejected an obviousness challenge brought by DuPont against a patent owned by Furanix Technologies B. V. directed to methods for preparing the...
by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 24, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Dominic J. Yee, Ph.D. and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On February 3, 2017, the PTAB denied a petition by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) to institute an inter partes review of Hospira Inc.’s patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions of the sedative...
by Carl Kukkonen | Jan 16, 2017 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics
By Kevin Clark and Carl Kukkonen The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently reviewed the threshold necessary to institute a request for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Munchkin, Inc. v. Int’l Refills Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01154 (December 12,...
