Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
The Federal Circuit’s March 21, 2025 decision in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al. (No. 2023-2045) and the recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Delegated Rehearing Panel decision in SynAffix B.V. v....more
On January 16, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in a post-grant review (“PGR”) of claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,808,039 (the “’039 patent”) owned by Seagen Inc. (“Seagen”). PGR2021-00030 was filed by Daiichi...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has increasingly used its discretionary denial authority in recent years. Although the PTAB’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv grabbed many headlines in 2021, the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
In Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an inter partes review decision for the Patent Owner. The Court held that the Patent Trial and Review Board failed to perform the...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
It has been another steamy August week here in Washington and at the Federal Circuit, with eleven new opinions fresh off the press. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective...more
In post-grant proceedings since 2018, the PTAB has applied the same claim construction standard as used in district court; a recent Memorandum confirms the PTAB will likewise apply the same standard that district courts use...more
Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by...more
In the context of Immunex’s patent on IL-4 antibodies, the Federal Circuit says yes. On October 13, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “Board”) final written decision in...more
PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATION, LLC v. APPLE INC - Before Reyna, Taranto and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution history evidence need not rise to the level of disclaimer to...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted in part a Patent Owner’s motion to strike Petitioner’s Reply for improperly raising new arguments and citing new evidence. The Board, however, declined to throw out the entirety...more