Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Class Certification in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more
Technical experts play a key role in patent litigation, including in PTAB litigation. Indeed, experts are often the only witnesses to provide testimony in PTAB proceedings, and final written decisions often hinge on which...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...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
Imagine sitting in a conference room with your carefully crafted set of questions for a deposition, and you are exploring the basis for an opposing expert’s opinions. But instead of giving thoughtful answers, the expert...more
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 patent litigation. In its first...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 Apple, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (IPR2020-00686), the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s motion to exclude portions of the Petitioner’s supplemental expert declaration. Here the Patent Owner sought to exclude a number of...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more
In a recent precedential decision, TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a pair of USPTO inter partes review proceedings that invalidated all claims of two related U.S. patents because “the...more
While PTAB proceedings are ordinarily decided “on the papers,” in certain rare cases the Board will permit live witness testimony at the oral hearing. The Board’s precedential decision in K-40 v. Escort explains that...more
Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more
The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more
In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more
On November 27th, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge Jacqueline Bonilla presented a webinar on the PTAB’s proposed Motion to Amend pilot program. In October 2018, the Patent Office published a request for...more
In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued its initial Trial Practice Guide in August 2012, shortly before America Invents Act (“AIA”) post-grant proceedings became available. That Guide had not been supplemented or...more
In This Issue - US Taxation of IP After Tax Reform - U.S. taxation of intellectual property has become astoundingly more complex after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new rules are so complex that the IRS and Treasury...more
In Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 2016-1671, 2018 WL 2407172 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that had sustained the patentability of claim 1 of U.S. Patent...more
The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c),...more
On April 2, 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision in Fox Factory finding that the petitioner failed to carry its burden in showing the instituted claims were unpatentable as obvious. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more