PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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By Joe Sauer In a November 17, 2016 non-precedential decision, a Federal Circuit panel again considered whether its holding in Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed.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...
The Equitable Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel Does Not Prevent PTAB from Instituting an IPR

The Equitable Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel Does Not Prevent PTAB from Instituting an IPR

by Carl Kukkonen | Oct 18, 2016 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Standing, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen Last month, the Federal Circuit in Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726, 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016) addressed the issue of whether assignor estoppel may bar a party from filing a petition for inter...
PTAB Publishes August 2016 Trial Statistics – 34% of Final Written Decisions in Favor of Patent Owner

PTAB Publishes August 2016 Trial Statistics – 34% of Final Written Decisions in Favor of Patent Owner

by Matthew Johnson | Oct 13, 2016 | Final Written Decisions, Petitions, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Matt Johnson (profile) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has released AIA trial filing and disposition numbers for August 2016. Filings remained near the 150 mark, with 143 total trials being requested in August, 136 of those being requests for Inter Partes Review....
« 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.