PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Federal Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing on Whether PTAB’s 1-Year-Bar Decisions Are Reviewable

Federal Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing on Whether PTAB’s 1-Year-Bar Decisions Are Reviewable

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 4, 2017 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Real Party in Interest, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson Today the Federal Circuit agreed to rehear en banc the panel decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. on the issue of whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar can be reviewed on appeal.  This question tests the...
Inherent Obviousness:  Artisans Need Not Recognize Latent Properties to Challenge Claims

Inherent Obviousness: Artisans Need Not Recognize Latent Properties to Challenge Claims

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Dec 21, 2016 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On November 30, 2016, the PTAB issued decisions on the institution of inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (the ’061 patent), which relates to formulations for injectable suspensions having increased...
PTAB Agrees to Review Patent Claims Covering Dry Eye Ailments

PTAB Agrees to Review Patent Claims Covering Dry Eye Ailments

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Dec 19, 2016 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Wanli Tang, Ph.D. and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On December 8, 2016, the PTAB issued six institution decisions in cases IPR2016-01127, IPR2016-01128, IPR2016-01129, IPR2016-01130, IPR2016-01131, and IPR2016-01132, agreeing to review claims of U.S. Patent Nos....
PTAB Says Copyright Notice Alone Doesn’t Make Out a Printed Publication

PTAB Says Copyright Notice Alone Doesn’t Make Out a Printed Publication

by David Cochran | Dec 16, 2016 | Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Dave Cochran The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2016-01083, Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, Inc., because the petitioner – Microsoft – failed to establish that a software reference manual that was part of its sole ground of...
Judges Recommend En Banc Reconsideration of Federal Circuit Holding in Achates

Judges Recommend En Banc Reconsideration of Federal Circuit Holding in Achates

by Joe Sauer | Nov 25, 2016 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Standing, Trial Institution

By Joe Sauer In a November 17, 2016 non-precedential decision, a Federal Circuit panel again considered whether its holding in Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) remains binding in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in...
PTAB Declines to Institute IPR Proceedings Against Three Biogen TYSABRI® Formulation Patents

PTAB Declines to Institute IPR Proceedings Against Three Biogen TYSABRI® Formulation Patents

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Nov 3, 2016 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By: Irina Britva and Patrick Elsevier On October 17, 2016, the PTAB declined the requests of Swiss Pharma International AG (“Swiss Pharma”) in cases IPR2016-00912, IPR2016-00915, and IPR2016-00916 to institute inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of three patents owned by...
« 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.