PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
PTAB Nixes IPR Revival

PTAB Nixes IPR Revival

by Matthew Johnson | Jul 10, 2024 | Joinder, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits, Trial Institution

By Ariana Tsanas*, Matt Johnson, and Daniel Sloan – On May 6th, 2024, the PTAB declined Ubiquiti Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request to institute inter partes review.  Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech., IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (May 6, 2024). ...
PTAB Statistics Through Seven Months of FY2024

PTAB Statistics Through Seven Months of FY2024

by Tom Ritchie | Jul 2, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By Tom Ritchie – The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2024 through the end of April 2024 (the period from Oct. 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024) stands at 66% (427 instituted, 230 denied).  This rate remains flat compared to the previous two fiscal...
PTAB Institutes IPR on Compelling Merits, Despite Other Fintiv Factors Favoring Denial

PTAB Institutes IPR on Compelling Merits, Despite Other Fintiv Factors Favoring Denial

by David Maiorana | Jun 26, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution

By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On October 27, 2023, Inergy Technology, Inc. (“Inergy”) filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,629,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) (“IPR093”) and 7,812,409 (“the ’409 Patent”) (“IPR094”), each...
Road Mapping Leads to Dead End

Road Mapping Leads to Dead End

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 21, 2024 | Preliminary Responses, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Dave Cochran and Daniel Sloan – On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”).  Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071, Paper...
Director Vidal Reels In Discretionary Denials Under Section 314(a)

Director Vidal Reels In Discretionary Denials Under Section 314(a)

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 4, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.  In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent was...
USPTO Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Discretionary Denial, Serial and Parallel Petitions, and Settlement

USPTO Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Discretionary Denial, Serial and Parallel Petitions, and Settlement

by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution

By Matthew Johnson, Carl Kukkonen, Evan C. Jones, and Daniel Sloan – On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues.  The Notice addresses stakeholder...
« 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.