PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Sheds Light on Role of Prior Art in Discretionary Denial

PTAB Sheds Light on Role of Prior Art in Discretionary Denial

by Joe Sauer | Nov 7, 2017 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

by Seth M. Bostrom and Joseph M. Sauer The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated as informative three cases involving discretionary denial of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).  We previously profiled the case of Hospira, Inc. v....
PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 27, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative.  Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below.  We previously reported on Hospira, Inc. v....
Timely Joinder Cannot Save Untimely IPR When Nothing to Join

Timely Joinder Cannot Save Untimely IPR When Nothing to Join

by Cary Miller | Oct 3, 2017 | Trial Institution

By Lin Yu, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. In IPR2017-01054 and IPR2017-01055 (Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Hospira Inc.), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,158 and 8,338,470, because Petitioner Fresenius filed the IPR petitions...
Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

Five-Judge PTAB Panel Interprets “Module” As Non Means-Plus Function

by Carl Kukkonen | Oct 2, 2017 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen and Amanda Leckman On September 13, 2017, the PTAB, a five-judge panel, granted a petition to institute an inter partes review brought by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) regarding U.S....
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...
« 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.