Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/authors/john-marlott/
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 14:06:39
Document Index: 385316757

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 314', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§315', '§ 315', '§ 317', '§ 315']

John Marlott at Jones Day | JD Supra
6/24/2020 / § 314(d) , Appointments Clause , Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee , Final Written Decisions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP
Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition. Samsung Electronics America, Inc....more
4/21/2020 / Claim Limitations , Computer-Related Inventions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Means-Plus-Function , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents
While acknowledging an “apparent loophole” in the America Invents Act, a district court has permitted an accused-infringer-DJ-plaintiff to pursue counterclaims for patent invalidity—with no bar on later seeking an IPR at the...more
4/17/2020 / Patent Invalidity , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, Dkt. 115. The court held in Arthrex...more
3/27/2020 / Administrative Patent Judges , Appointments Clause , Constitutional Challenges , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , USPTO
On Monday, March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Arthrex appeal that found PTAB ALJs to be unconstitutional appointments. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order...more
3/24/2020 / Administrative Patent Judges , Appointments Clause , Constitutional Challenges , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Remand , USPTO , Vacated
2/3/2020 / Appointments Clause , Denial of Institution , Final Written Decisions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Remand , SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu , Unconstitutional Condition , USPTO , Vacated
12/4/2019 / Evidence , Expert Testimony , Live Streaming , New Evidence , Oral Argument , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Precedential Opinion , Prior Art , Testimonial Statements , Trial Practice Guidance , Witnesses
11/5/2019 / Claim Construction , Discovery , Electronically Stored Information , Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , Local Patent Rules , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patents , Pleading Standards , State and Local Government , State Pilot Programs
After SAS, does institution of an IPR make a district court more or less likely to stay a parallel litigation? Maybe, maybe not. In its April 2018 decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the...more
10/2/2019 / Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Motion To Stay , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu , SCOTUS , USPTO
8/5/2019 / Abstract Ideas , CLS Bank v Alice Corp , Covered Business Method Patents , Covered Business Method Proceedings , Legislative Agendas , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patent-Eligible Subject Matter , Patents , Section 101
We recently posted about the panel opinion in Amazon.com v. Uniloc, a final written decision demonstrating how the PTAB has given heightened scrutiny to proposed substitute amended claims in an IPR. In addition to assessing...more
3/25/2019 / Claim Amendments , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Motion to Amend , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patent-Eligible Subject Matter , Patents , Prior Art , Section 101 , Statutory Requirements
2/11/2019 / Administrative Procedure , Appeals , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Motion to Amend , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patent-Eligible Subject Matter , Patents , Prior Art , Section 101 , Section 102 , Section 103 , Section 112
Estimates are that roughly 80% of IPRs involve a challenge to a patent being asserted against the petitioner in a district court litigation. Typically, in those IPRs, if the litigation-defendant-petitioner loses at the PTAB,...more
12/28/2018 / Article III , Final Written Decisions , Injury-in-Fact , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Standing , USPTO
10/19/2018 / Administrative Procedure , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patent-Eligible Subject Matter , Patents , Prior Art , Section 101 , Section 102 , Section 103 , Section 112
9/11/2018 / §315(e) , Administrative Procedure , Claim Construction , Estoppel , Indefiniteness , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , ITC , Means-Plus-Function , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patent-Eligible Subject Matter , Patents , Prior Art , Section 112 , USPTO
A Covered Business Method (“CBM”) patent review permits a petitioner to challenge a patent having claims “used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service,” and that do not claim a...more
7/20/2018 / Covered Business Method Patents , Covered Business Method Proceedings , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patents , Section 101 , USPTO
6/18/2018 / Administrative Proceedings , America Invents Act , Chevron Deference , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group , Patent Ownership , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Post-Grant Review , SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu , SCOTUS
In an effort to create greater predictability for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the District enacted Local Patent Rules ("LPR") effective as of October 1, 2009. This annotated version of the LPRs...more
4/25/2018 / Claim Construction , Discovery , Electronically Stored Information , Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , Local Patent Rules , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patents , Pleading Standards , State and Local Government
The AIA prohibits institution of a post-grant proceeding when the petitioner previously “filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). PGR petitions (including CBM petitions)...more
4/11/2018 / America Invents Act , Counterclaims , Declaratory Judgments , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Litigation Strategies , Patent Infringement , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patent Validity , Patents , Post-Grant Review , Venue
3/2/2018 / America Invents Act , Claim Construction , Estoppel , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Litigation Strategies , Patent Invalidity , Patent Litigation , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Prior Art
The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. For IPRs, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) is entitled “Settlement” and provides, in pertinent...more
2/22/2018 / Administrative Procedure , Final Written Decisions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Motion to Terminate , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Post-Grant Review , Settlement Agreements
In yesterday’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp., Nos. 15-1944, -1945 & -1946 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), the en banc Federal Circuit addressed issues regarding judicial review of the PTAB’s time-bar...more
1/10/2018 / § 315(b) , America Invents Act , Appeals , En Banc Review , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Judicial Review , Non-Appealable Decisions , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Time-Barred Claims , USPTO
In a closely followed case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SAS Institute Inc., a cross-office, cross-practice Jones Day team has challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice to elect to institute...more
11/29/2017 / Chevron Deference , Final Written Decisions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Patent Infringement , Patent Litigation , Patent Validity , Patents , SCOTUS
10/19/2017 / Covered Business Method Patents , Follow-On Patent Petitions , Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding , Multi-Factor Test , Patent Exhaustion , Patent Trial and Appeal Board , Patents , Prior Art