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
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memorandum introducing a new interim process for handling institution decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs). The Office just...more
Key Takeaway: The USPTO has reinstated earlier discretionary denial standards (including Fintiv) and introduced a new two-phase review process, which is expected to lead to more frequent denials of IPR petitions. Both patent...more
On April 25, 2025, the USPTO issued additional information in response to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum issued on March 26, 2025. As discussed in our...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a list of FAQs related to the new bifurcated process for discretionary denial established in the March 26 memorandum issued by Acting Director Stewart. The FAQs...more
In 2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied inter partes review (“IPR”) institution where the petition was time barred under 35 U.S.C. § ...more
The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more
A new interim process for the acting director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review ("IPR") or a post-grant review ("PGR") was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary...more
On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new...more
On March 26, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trial institution process, creating a new bifurcated approach to institution decisions....more
Hot on the heels of rescinding former Director Vidal’s June 2022 memo providing guidance on discretionary denials, Acting Director of the USPTO, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a memo yesterday outlining new “Interim Processes...more
On March 26, 2025, the USPTO issued the attached memo titled “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management,” which significantly alters the pre-institution briefing procedure for IPRs and PGRs. Under the Interim Process,...more
Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark - Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing date, not its publication date. Samsung filed a petition for IPR of a Lynk Labs...more
Precedential Opinion Addresses Conclusory Expert Declarations - In a precedential opinion in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2022), the Board denied institution of an inter partes...more
The PTAB has previously applied to IPR filings the statutory grace period under 35 U.S.C. § 21(b) for USPTO papers and fees due on a weekend or holiday. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Immersion Corp., Case IPR2018-01468, slip op....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied a petitioner’s motion to excuse the late filing of the exhibits to its petition for inter partes review (IPR). The PTAB found that the petitioner had failed to show good...more
Recently in Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. v. Britax Child Safety, Inc., IPR2018-01683, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2018), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) denied Petitioner’s motion to excuse the late filing of...more
The PTAB extended the deadline for issuing its IPR final written decision on a motion to amend by up to six months to provide additional time to consider the impact of the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc Aqua Products...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a petition for inter partes review (IPR) may not be filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner was served with a patent infringement complaint. Thus, a petition must meet all of...more
The joinder provisions of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings can be a great tool to circumvent the 1-year IPR filing deadline following service of a complaint for infringement. However, grant of a joinder petition by the...more
The PTAB recently stood firm in denying a petitioner’s motion to change the filing dates of two IPR petitions that missed a statutory deadline by less than ten minutes. Case IPR2016-00281 and IPR2016-00282 (Patents 8,603,514...more
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bars petitions for an inter partes review that are filed “more than one year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging...more