PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 28, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Derek Walker, Evan Tassis, and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the...
Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 22, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Pranita Dhungana and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent.   Shenzhen Root Tech....
Prior Art Asserted in Second Petition Should Have Been Asserted in the First

Prior Art Asserted in Second Petition Should Have Been Asserted in the First

by Emily Tait | Jan 13, 2025 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Adriane Elinski and Emily Tait – The PTAB denied institution of a second inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Aylo Freesites (“Petitioner”) after having previously instituted inter partes review of Petitioner’s first petition related to the same...
PTAB Denies Institution of Maize-Directed PGR

PTAB Denies Institution of Maize-Directed PGR

by Matthew Johnson | Nov 8, 2024 | PGR, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Shane Padilla, Owen Carpenter, and Matt Johnson – On September 24, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding initiated by Inari Agriculture, Inc. (Petitioner) against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Patent Owner). The patent at...
Imprecise Claim Charts and Improper Incorporation By Reference Result in Institution Denial

Imprecise Claim Charts and Improper Incorporation By Reference Result in Institution Denial

by David Maiorana | Nov 4, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On March 23, 2024, Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,671,648 (“the ’648 Patent”) (“IPR716”), assigned to Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (“Eagle View”).  The ’648...
Director Vacates Decision Based on Improper Claim Construction

Director Vacates Decision Based on Improper Claim Construction

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 3, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson – The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.  The...
« 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.