PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Not An End Run Around Cuozzo

Petition For Writ Of Mandamus Not An End Run Around Cuozzo

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Aug 27, 2018 | Federal Circuit, Trial Institution

By: Jennifer J. Chheda, Ph.D and John D. Kinton The Federal Circuit recently denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“PI”) attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus to circumvent the bar in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions...
Institution Denied:  Pending Federal Circuit Appeal Warrants Denial of IPR

Institution Denied: Pending Federal Circuit Appeal Warrants Denial of IPR

by Marc S. Blackman | Jul 28, 2018 | Trial Institution

By: Marc S. Blackman The PTAB recently exercised its discretion to deny institution of an IPR proceeding because a potentially dispositive claim construction issue was pending before the Federal Circuit.  Comtech Mobile Datacom Corp v. Vehicle IP, LLC, Case...
PTAB Finds SAS Decision Constrains Discretion In Follow-On Petitions

PTAB Finds SAS Decision Constrains Discretion In Follow-On Petitions

by Sue Gerber | Jul 19, 2018 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By: Susan M. Gerber The PTAB has discretion to deny “follow-on” petitions that challenge the validity of a patent that has been previously subjected to inter partes review.  See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case...
Can Evidence of Noninstitution of an IPR be Introduced in District Court? Yes and No

Can Evidence of Noninstitution of an IPR be Introduced in District Court? Yes and No

by Doug Pearson | Jan 18, 2018 | Estoppel, Trial Institution

By Doug Pearson With institution rates of IPR petitions continuing to slide, and with district courts determining (depending on narrow or broad readings of the Shaw case) how estoppel may or may not apply in district court to noninstituted IPR grounds, a natural...
PTAB Designates Two 35 U.S.C. §315(b) Cases Informative

PTAB Designates Two 35 U.S.C. §315(b) Cases Informative

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 16, 2018 | PTAB News, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative: Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at filing) Amneal...
PTAB Denies Institution Because of Pending Reexamination Considering Same Prior Art

PTAB Denies Institution Because of Pending Reexamination Considering Same Prior Art

by Geoffrey Gavin | Dec 21, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Geoffrey Gavin In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination.  Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...
« 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.