PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
“Eleventh Hour” Sotera Stipulation Sufficient to Avoid Denial

“Eleventh Hour” Sotera Stipulation Sufficient to Avoid Denial

by Josh Nightingale | Jan 23, 2024 | Petitions, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Daniel Sloan and Josh Nightingale – The PTAB recently declined to exercise its discretion to deny IPR, instituting review in BMW of North America, LLC v. NorthStar Systems LLC, IPR2023-01017, Paper 12 (Dec. 8, 2023).  There, the PTAB held that (1) a Sotera...
Undated Screenshot Insufficient to Prove Public Accessibility of GitHub Repository

Undated Screenshot Insufficient to Prove Public Accessibility of GitHub Repository

by Josh Nightingale | Jan 12, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, Trial Institution

By Justice Hubbard, Robby Breetz, and Josh Nightingale – In AO Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc., the PTAB denied inter partes review after determining that a screenshot of a GitHub repository was insufficient to establish that a whitepaper posted to that...
Petitioner Prevails In Institution Decision Do-Over After Director Steps In

Petitioner Prevails In Institution Decision Do-Over After Director Steps In

by Josh Nightingale | Jan 4, 2024 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution

By Connor Scholes, Ashvi Patel, and Josh Nightingale – On November 6, 2023, the PTAB issued an decision instituting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 B2 (“the ’009 patent”) in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,...
Statutory Disclaimer After Petition Bars Institution

Statutory Disclaimer After Petition Bars Institution

by Matthew Johnson | Dec 22, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson – In IPR2023-01058, the PTAB declined to institute IPR, finding that Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 243(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), such that there was no basis on which to...
USPTO Director Orders Rehearing Panel Review of Second Denied IPR

USPTO Director Orders Rehearing Panel Review of Second Denied IPR

by Carl Kukkonen | Dec 14, 2023 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution

By Ben Baek* and Carl Kukkonen – On November 16, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal ordered a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) to review whether the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked certain issues when denying challenger SynAffix B.V.’s petition for inter partes...
Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

by Evan McLean | Nov 29, 2023 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Evan Jones and Evan McLean – On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487.  IPR2023-00519, Paper 10. The ’487 patent relates generally...
« 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.