PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

by Matthew Johnson | Feb 25, 2025 | PTAB News, Request for Reconsideration

By Sabrina Bellantoni and Matt Johnson – Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement.  Duration...
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....
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...
Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

Higher Burden of Demonstrating Public Accessibility of a Reference at Final Decision Stage

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | May 13, 2024 | Final Written Decisions, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Request for Reconsideration

By Jennifer Chheda and Daniel Sloan – In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found...
Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

by Matthew Johnson | May 10, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, Request for Reconsideration

By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson – On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...
PTAB Announces Rules Formalizing Director Review

PTAB Announces Rules Formalizing Director Review

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 26, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration

By: Lisa Furby, Marlee Hartenstein, Stephanie M. Mishaga and Robby Breetz – In 2021, following the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, the PTO issued an interim procedure for requesting Director Review (discussed here).  The PTO has now issued a Notice of Proposed...
« Older 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.