PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Proceedings Against Bayer’s Patent Covering STIVARGA®

PTAB Denies Institution of IPR Proceedings Against Bayer’s Patent Covering STIVARGA®

by Cary Miller | Mar 8, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, Trial Institution

By Irina Britva, Ph.D and Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. On February 8, 2017, the PTAB denied Fustibal LLC’s (“Fustibal”) petition to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,637,553 B2 (“the ’553 patent”) owned by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”) (IPR2016-01490).  The...
PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

PTAB Rejects Flawed Inherency Argument Against Drug Composition Patent

by Jones Day's PTAB Team | Feb 24, 2017 | Pharmaceutical, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Dominic J. Yee, Ph.D. and J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. On February 3, 2017, the PTAB denied a petition by Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”) to institute an inter partes review of Hospira Inc.’s patent directed to pharmaceutical compositions of the sedative...
PTAB Muddies the Murky Water of IPR Estoppel after Shaw

PTAB Muddies the Murky Water of IPR Estoppel after Shaw

by David Cochran | Feb 20, 2017 | Estoppel, Trial Institution

By Rich Graham and Dave Cochran The Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw[1] affirmed the PTAB’s policy that a Petitioner was not estopped from requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) based on prior art previously included in a petition for IPR, but for which institution...
Old Drug Label Still Requires Authentication of Publication Date

Old Drug Label Still Requires Authentication of Publication Date

by Cary Miller | Feb 17, 2017 | Evidentiary Issues, Trial Institution

By Lin Yu, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. In IPR2016-01566 (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH), the PTAB denied institution of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,859, in part, because Petitioner –Mylan – failed to provide...
« 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.