News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation › Litigation Strategies › Judicial Authority

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Stipulated Motion to Stay Denied Until All Defendants Agree to be Bound by IPR Estoppel

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was...more

Jones Day

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Jones Day on

On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC: Federal Circuit Resolves the IPR Estoppel Split

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook on

In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide