PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Like Dominoes: CBM Determination Held Not Appealable

Like Dominoes: CBM Determination Held Not Appealable

by Albert Liou | Dec 10, 2020 | CBMs, Trial Institution

By Albert Liou and Alison Ibendahl – A November 17, 2020 decision by the Federal Circuit has extended the Supreme Court’s April 2020 decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), which held that institution decisions...
PTAB Requests Comments Regarding Discretionary Institution Issues

PTAB Requests Comments Regarding Discretionary Institution Issues

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 20, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson – The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016). ...
How Does the PTAB Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a)?

How Does the PTAB Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a)?

by Matthew Johnson | Sep 1, 2020 | Trial Institution

By Alex Li and Matt Johnson The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR).  Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing district court...
Black Box Structure Insufficient for MPF Element

Black Box Structure Insufficient for MPF Element

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 26, 2020 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution

By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson – In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the ʼ740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...
PTAB Designates Fintive Factor Decisions Informative

PTAB Designates Fintive Factor Decisions Informative

by Matthew Johnson | Aug 5, 2020 | Trial Institution

In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality when a patent owner raises an...
Follow On Petition Denied for Implicit “Significant Relationship”

Follow On Petition Denied for Implicit “Significant Relationship”

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 24, 2020 | Trial Institution

By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson – In Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550 (PTAB March 17, 2020) (Paper 8), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, exercising its discretion to deny “follow-on petitions” challenging...
« 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.