PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Rule Permits Solo Representation and Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission

PTAB Rule Permits Solo Representation and Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 24, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Nicholas D’Andrea and Matt Johnson – On October 10, 2024, the USPTO issued a final rule allowing parties to proceed without backup counsel in AIA proceedings and implementing an automatic admission process for pro hac vice attorneys.  Full text of the...
Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

by David Maiorana | Sep 13, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB Trial Basics, Real Party in Interest, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On December 1, 2023, Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. (“Intelligent”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) (“IPR256”), assigned to Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC...
Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 5, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration

By Owen Carpenter and Matt Johnson –  – On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485....
PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 4, 2024 | Claim Construction, District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district...
Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 30, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics

By Matt Carey and Matt Johnson – In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports...
No Requirement to Raise All Arguments in Rehearing Request

No Requirement to Raise All Arguments in Rehearing Request

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 20, 2024 | Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration

By Lisamarie LoGiudice, Joe Farley, and Matt Johnson – The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s...
« 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.