PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Applies General Plastic Factors to Serial Petitions Seeking Joinder

PTAB Applies General Plastic Factors to Serial Petitions Seeking Joinder

by David Maiorana | Sep 15, 2023 | Joinder, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – In February 2023, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) filed petitions requesting four inter partes reviews (“the T-Mobile IPRs”)—two of which challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234 and two of which challenged U.S. Patent No....
Failure to Challenge Patent Owner’s Assertions Proves Detrimental

Failure to Challenge Patent Owner’s Assertions Proves Detrimental

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 13, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to determining the pitch of roofs after finding that Petitioner failed to directly challenge the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s priority assertions...
Common Inventorship And Technology Insufficient For 325(d) Denial

Common Inventorship And Technology Insufficient For 325(d) Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 11, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson and Jack Graves— The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had previously...
Petitioner Faulted For Not Preemptively Addressing Fintiv

Petitioner Faulted For Not Preemptively Addressing Fintiv

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 30, 2023 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By RJ Shea and Matt Johnson – On July 17, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review petition based on the stature of a related U.S. District Court of Delaware...
Legislation: Will the Post-Grant Procedures Established by the AIA PREVAIL?

Legislation: Will the Post-Grant Procedures Established by the AIA PREVAIL?

by Kenneth Luchesi | Aug 28, 2023 | PTAB News, Standing, Trial Institution

By Nick Bagnolo and Kenny Luchesi – The Senate recently introduced a bill directed to substantially narrowing the scope of post grant proceedings, including Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  First introduced by a...
Provisional Describes “Incompressible Solid” Despite Disclosure Of “Little” Compression

Provisional Describes “Incompressible Solid” Despite Disclosure Of “Little” Compression

by Albert Liou | Aug 1, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Albert Liou – In a recent decision denying institution, the PTAB rejected Petitioner Mercedes Benz USA’s argument that the challenged patent was not entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.  Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems...
« 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.