PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
Availability of Document on Government Website Insufficient for Institution

Availability of Document on Government Website Insufficient for Institution

by Lisa Furby | Apr 12, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Lisa Furby – In denying inter partes review in OBM, Inc. & Cholla Energy LLC v. Lancium LLC, the PTAB again made clear that “technical availability” of a reference is not enough to establish it is a printed publication.  Here, the PTAB held that the...
Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

by David Maiorana | Apr 11, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana – On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds:...
Director Review: PTAB Must Articulate Bases for Section 325(d) Denial

Director Review: PTAB Must Articulate Bases for Section 325(d) Denial

by Josh Nightingale | Apr 5, 2024 | 325(d) issues, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Ashvi Patel and Josh Nightingale – Director Vidal recently vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deny institution of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR), citing insufficient explanation for denial under 35 U.S.C....
PTAB Denies Parallel IPR Petition

PTAB Denies Parallel IPR Petition

by Kenneth Luchesi | Mar 13, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Owen Carpenter and Kenny Luchesi – The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...
General Plastic Factors Lead to Institution Denial

General Plastic Factors Lead to Institution Denial

by Carl Kukkonen | Mar 8, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Carl Kukkonen – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited (IPR2023-01219), recently denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent on a lighting system and control for producing cinematic...
PRECEDENTIAL – Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

PRECEDENTIAL – Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

by Bill Devitt | Feb 1, 2024 | Petitions, Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Connor Scholes, Owen Carpenter, Bill Devitt, and Dave Maiorana – In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be...
« 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.