PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
Fintiv Factor 3 Centers on Degree of Investment, Not Substantive Arguments

Fintiv Factor 3 Centers on Degree of Investment, Not Substantive Arguments

by Emily Tait | Aug 1, 2023 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Emily Tait and Adriane Elinski* – In a recent decision, the PTAB granted institution of an IPR despite multiple parallel district court proceedings involving the same patent, and flatly rejected the Patent Owner’s argument that the Petitioner’s “conflicting”...
Likelihood of Success on 1 of 46 Claims Deemed Inefficient

Likelihood of Success on 1 of 46 Claims Deemed Inefficient

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 29, 2023 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Kyle Perisutti*, Robby Breetz, and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to deny institution of inter partes review for inefficient use of the PTAB’s time and resources notwithstanding that the petitioner met the...
Court Opts Not To Stay Without Trial Instituted On All Asserted Patents

Court Opts Not To Stay Without Trial Instituted On All Asserted Patents

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 27, 2023 | Stay, Trial Institution

By Jessica Vedrani*, Misti Blount, and Matt Johnson – Congress implemented the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) to “establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that [would] improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive...
« 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.