PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Patent Owner Sanctioned For Ex Parte Communications

Patent Owner Sanctioned For Ex Parte Communications

by David Maiorana | Jan 9, 2019 | PTAB News, Request for Reconsideration

By Dave Maiorana Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d), communications with a Board member regarding a specific proceeding are not permitted “unless both parties have an opportunity to be involved in the communication.”  This prohibition, however, does not extend to “referring to...
Role Of Company Board Members May Impact RPI Analysis

Role Of Company Board Members May Impact RPI Analysis

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Jan 4, 2019 | Real Party in Interest, Request for Reconsideration

By Jennifer Chheda Ph.D. and John Kinton The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied the request of petitioner Fasteners for Retail, Inc. (“FFR” or “petitioner”) for rehearing in connection with decisions denying the institution of inter partes review...
Indefiniteness Again Leads To Unsuccessful IPR Challenge

Indefiniteness Again Leads To Unsuccessful IPR Challenge

by John Marlott | Oct 18, 2018 | Final Written Decisions, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By T. Kaitlin Crowder, John Marlott, and Dave Cochran The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness).  The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other...
Court Grants Rehearing In Light Of Wi-Fi One

Court Grants Rehearing In Light Of Wi-Fi One

by Carl Kukkonen | Feb 5, 2018 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit, Federal Circuit Appeal, Request for Reconsideration

By: Amanda Leckman and Carl Kukkonen Eleven days after the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in Wi-Fi Onc, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Nos. 15-1944, -1945 & -1946 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), a three-judge panel granted a petition by patent owner Click-to-Call...
PTAB Grants Rare Rehearing Due To Insufficient Evidence Of Obviousness

PTAB Grants Rare Rehearing Due To Insufficient Evidence Of Obviousness

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Sep 21, 2017 | Request for Reconsideration

By J. Jason Williams and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. In Coalition For Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp. (2015-01096, -01102, -01103),[1] the PTAB granted Patent Owner Celgene’s request for rehearing of a final written decision that had found the challenged...
Successful Rehearing of WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical- What Went Right?

Successful Rehearing of WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical- What Went Right?

by Carl Kukkonen | Feb 14, 2017 | Claim Construction, Request for Reconsideration

By Kamilah Alexander and Carl Kukkonen Conventional wisdom endorses the view that petitioning for a rehearing of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) final written decision is a waste of both attorney and client resources (i.e., time and money).  Does...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • 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.