PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Provides Glimpse Of What Is Good Cause To Extend Trial

PTAB Provides Glimpse Of What Is Good Cause To Extend Trial

by S. Christian Platt | Oct 30, 2017 | Amendment Practice, PTAB News, Time Limits

By: Christian Platt and Richard Graham The PTAB may, where good cause exists, extend a trial up to six months beyond the required twelve month length pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11).  On October 5, 2017, the PTAB issued its first “good cause” extension of a trial in...
En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by John Marlott | May 11, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By John Marlott The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal.  In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set to decide the following...
IPRs Are Not Time Barred by an Earlier ITC Complaint

IPRs Are Not Time Barred by an Earlier ITC Complaint

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...
Federal Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing on Whether PTAB’s 1-Year-Bar Decisions Are Reviewable

Federal Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing on Whether PTAB’s 1-Year-Bar Decisions Are Reviewable

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 4, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Real Party in Interest, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson Today the Federal Circuit agreed to rehear en banc the panel decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. on the issue of whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar can be reviewed on appeal.  This question tests the...

Motions to Extend Pendency of IPRs Based on Pending Cuozzo Supreme Court Case

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Mar 30, 2016 | Time Limits

B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. MAG Aerospace Indus., LLC, IPR2014-01510, -01511, -01513, Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Extend One Year Period for Issuance of Final Determination Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11), Paper 105 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) On January 15,...

PGR Eligibility for Patents Issuing from Pre-AIA Examined Applications

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 5, 2016 | Petitions, PGR, Time Limits

US Endotronics, LLC. v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC., PGR2015-00019 Patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013 (“transition applications”), are examined under pre-AIA first-to-invent...
« 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.