PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Expanded PTO Panels and Improper Joinder:  The Federal Circuit Fires a Warning Shot

Expanded PTO Panels and Improper Joinder: The Federal Circuit Fires a Warning Shot

by Joe Sauer | Aug 24, 2017 | Federal Circuit, Trial Institution

By Joseph M. Sauer The Federal Circuit’s decision in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., (Fed. Cir. No. 16-2321), expresses a growing discomfort with the Patent Office’s practice of joinder and expanded panels. Procedural History The procedural...
Genentech to Defend 3 of 4 Herceptin® Patents Challenged by Hospira

Genentech to Defend 3 of 4 Herceptin® Patents Challenged by Hospira

by Cary Miller | Aug 9, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Raffaella Faraoni, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. At least 19 IPRs have been filed against seven of Genentech’s patents covering its blockbuster antibody drug Herceptin® (trastuzumab). On July 27, 2017, the PTAB instituted IPRs filed by Hospira, Inc. (a subsidiary of...
PTAB Denies Joinder of IPR Petitioner That Won’t Take “Silent Understudy” Role

PTAB Denies Joinder of IPR Petitioner That Won’t Take “Silent Understudy” Role

by Cary Miller | Jul 20, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Achim Brinker, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. In orders entered July 10 and 12, 2017, the PTAB instituted further inter partes review (IPR) of six Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) patents relating to cyclosporine compositions.  Each of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,633,162,...
En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

En Banc Federal Circuit Poised To Decide Important Question Concerning PTAB Appeals

by John Marlott | May 11, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By John Marlott The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal.  In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set to decide the following...
A Single Bite at the Apple: The Board’s Discretion to Deny Institution under § 314(a)

A Single Bite at the Apple: The Board’s Discretion to Deny Institution under § 314(a)

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Apr 28, 2017 | Trial Institution

By Albert Liou In a series of related decisions issued in April 2017, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny institution of inter partes review petitions filed by Xactware Solutions, Inc. against Eagle View...
ITC Judge Takes Notice of PTAB Institution Denials

ITC Judge Takes Notice of PTAB Institution Denials

by Matthew Johnson | Apr 15, 2017 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson PTAB trials are nearly always (~ 4 out of 5) driven by some concurrent litigation need, either a district court complaint of infringement filed against the petitioner or an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation initiated by the patent...
« 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.