PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 13, 2024 | Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam Cook and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...
Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 11, 2024 | Expert Witnesses, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By James Twieg and Matt Johnson – “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution of...
The “Best Way” to Avoid Adverse Judgment

The “Best Way” to Avoid Adverse Judgment

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 6, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By:  Daniel Sloan, Kevin McCarthy, and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied Bestway (USA), Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) request for PGR of U.S. Pat. No. 11,959,512 B2 (“the ’512 patent”) but declined to enter adverse judgment against Intex Marketing, Ltd. (“Patent...
USPTO Finalizes Partial Permanence of MTA Pilot Program

USPTO Finalizes Partial Permanence of MTA Pilot Program

by S. Christian Platt | Dec 2, 2024 | Amendment Practice, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Adam J. Cook, Kristen VandeVoort,* Daniel Sloan, and Christian Platt – On October 18, 2024, the USPTO’s final rule regarding Motion to Amend (“MTA”) practice and procedures in trial proceedings under the America Invents Act became effective.  The rule makes...
Don’t Wait To Seek Discovery Or It May Be Too Late

Don’t Wait To Seek Discovery Or It May Be Too Late

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 18, 2024 | Discovery, Evidentiary Issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – “The statutory provisions for inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered-business method patent reviews caution against overly broad discovery and provide the same considerations, including efficient administration of...
Imprecise Claim Charts and Improper Incorporation By Reference Result in Institution Denial

Imprecise Claim Charts and Improper Incorporation By Reference Result in Institution Denial

by David Maiorana | Nov 4, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On March 23, 2024, Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,671,648 (“the ’648 Patent”) (“IPR716”), assigned to Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (“Eagle View”).  The ’648...
« 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.