Site map
All indexed pages on this site, grouped by topic. Machine-readable versions: sitemap.xml and llms.txt.
Main pages
- USPTO and AIA Links
- Post-Grant Proceedings Comparison Chart
- Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: A Guide to Your Options
- Post-Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review
- PTAB Statistics
- Post-Grant Resources
- U.S. Patent Practice and PTAB Training Seminars
Proceedings guide
- Certificate of Correction
- Statutory Patent Disclaimers
- Ex Parte Reexamination
- Inter Partes Reexamination (Historical)
- Inter Partes Review (IPR)
- Post-Grant Review (PGR)
- Reissue Applications
- Supplemental Examination
- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
- Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (Historical)
Articles
- Why the PTAB Result Matters: How the Federal Circuit Reviews Board Decisions
- Amending Patent Claims During Inter Partes Review
- Attacking a Patent at the PTO? Beware the Real Party in Interest
- The Basics of an Inter Partes Review Petition
- Certificates of Correction and Third Parties
- Cisco v. C-Cation: Incorporation by Reference in IPR Petitions
- Claim Construction During Inter Partes Review
- Comparing Post-Grant Procedures at the USPTO, EPO and JPO
- Defining “Privy” in AIA Trials
- Discovery and the One-Year Time Period in AIA Proceedings
- Discovery in Post-Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review
- Estoppel Arising from PTAB Trials
- Evidentiary Considerations in PTAB Trials
- Intervening Rights Arise Only When Claim Text Is Amended: Marine Polymer v. HemCon
- The First AIA Trials and What They Established
- Getting the Last Word in PTAB Trials
- Cuozzo and the End of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation at the PTAB
- In re Tanaka: Adding a Narrower Dependent Claim Is a Reissuable Error
- In re Yamazaki: Terminal Disclaimers and Reissue Applications
- In re Youman: When a Broadened Reissue Claim Avoids Recapture
- IPR Challenges to Biopharmaceutical Patents
- Why a Court’s Validity Ruling Does Not Bar Reexamination at the USPTO
- The PTAB Trial Practice Guide: What It Is and How to Use It
- Supreme Court Decisions on Post-Grant Practice and Patent Validity
- After Therasense, Why Supplemental Examination Is Less Attractive
- Prior User Rights: The Prior Commercial Use Defense under 35 U.S.C. § 273
- PTAB Practice after SAS Institute v. Iancu
- How the PTAB Trial Rules Have Changed Since 2012
- Reissue Applications: Procedure, Advantages and Pitfalls
- Reissue vs. Supplemental Examination: Choosing a Patent-Owner Tool
- How Often Is Supplemental Examination Used, and What Happens Next
- Starting a Post-Grant Proceeding: The Different Threshold Standards
- Supplemental Examination: A Detailed Look at the Procedure
- Supplementing the Record in PTAB Trials with Supplemental Information
- Taking a Deposition in an IPR or PGR
- From the BPAI to the PTAB: A Short History of the Board
- Reading PTAB Trial Outcomes: Institution, Settlement and Final Decisions
- Natural Products and Diagnostics after Myriad: Patent Eligibility Today
- Sanctions at the PTAB: What Conduct Is Sanctionable and What the Board Can Do
- Who Is the Real Party in Interest in an IPR or PGR?
PTAB decision notes
- Proppant Express v. Oren Technologies (IPR2017-01917): Adding Real Parties in Interest after Institution
- The Alice Two-Step Test in Post-Grant Proceedings
- Amazon v. Uniloc (IPR2017-00948, Paper 34): Substitute Claims Can Be Challenged under § 101
- Amneal v. Endo (IPR2014-00360): A Proposed Amended Complaint Does Not Start the § 315(b) Clock
- AOL v. Coho Licensing (IPR2014-00771, Paper 12): No Party Requests for Expanded Panels, and No New Arguments on Rehearing
- Argentum v. Alcon (IPR2017-01053): What a Motion to Seal Must Show
- Ariosa v. Isis (IPR2012-00022, Paper 55): Guidelines for a Deposition Through an Interpreter
- Ariosa v. Isis (IPR2012-00022): An Incomplete-Petition Notice and the § 315(a)(1) Bar
- ARRIS v. C-Cation (IPR2015-00635, Paper 10): Additional Discovery on Privity and the Time Bar
- Athena v. Husky (IPR2013-00290): Assignor Estoppel Does Not Bar an IPR Petition
- Becton, Dickinson v. B. Braun (IPR2017-01586): The § 325(d) Factors
- Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert (CBM2013-00005, Paper 32): The Good Cause Standard for Additional Discovery
- Conopco v. Procter & Gamble (IPR2014-00506): Rehearing Denied for a Follow-on Petition
- Corning v. DSM (IPR2013-00043, Paper 27): Additional Discovery of Laboratory Notebooks
- Corning Optical v. PPC Broadband (IPR2014-00441): Guidance after a Conference to Confer on Amendment
- CRS v. Frontline (CBM2012-00005, Paper 31): Motions Lists, Claim Construction and Schedule Changes
- Cultec v. StormTech (IPR2017-00777): § 325(d) after a Third-Party Submission
- Facebook v. Skky (CBM2016-00091): Pre-Institution Disclaimers and CBM Review Eligibility
- LaRose Industries v. Choon’s Design (PGR2014-00008): The First Post-Grant Review Petition
- Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 15): The Decision to Institute the First IPR
- Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 34): What a Motion to Seal Must Contain
- Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 36): Sealing Personal Data, Not Waived Privilege
- Garmin v. Cuozzo (IPR2012-00001, Paper 26): The Five Additional Discovery Factors
- GEA Process Engineering v. Steuben Foods (IPR2014-00041): An Unnamed Affiliate That Funded the Petitions
- General Plastic v. Canon (IPR2016-01357): The Follow-on Petition Factors
- Hospira v. Genentech (IPR2017-00739): § 325(d) and a Priority Date the Examiner Decided
- Huawei v. Optis Cellular (IPR2018-00816): New Evidence with a Rehearing Request
- Idle Free v. Bergstrom (IPR2012-00027): The Board’s Early Guidance on Motions to Amend
- Intellectual Ventures Management v. Xilinx (IPR2012-00018): A Patent Owner Must Show Why the RPI Disclosure Is Wrong
- Inter Partes Review and Limited Discovery: Applying the Garmin Factors in Practice
- IBM v. Financial Systems Technology (IPR2013-00078, Paper 7): Guidance on Filing a Settlement
- IBM v. Financial Systems Technology (IPR2013-00078, Paper 11): Terminating an IPR before Institution
- International Flavors & Fragrances v. United States (IPR2013-00124): A Motion to Amend Granted in Part
- Kayak v. IBM (CBM2016-00075): Denying Review of Art Already Considered in Prosecution
- Kyocera v. Softview (IPR2013-00004, Paper 15): Authorizing a Third Party's Motion for Joinder
- LG Electronics v. Mondis (IPR2015-00937): The First Complaint Starts the § 315(b) Clock
- Liberty Mutual v. Progressive (CBM2012-00002): Filing Date Notice and a Telephonic Certification
- Lighting Ballast v. Philips: How the Federal Circuit Reviews Claim Construction
- LKQ v. Clearlamp (IPR2013-00020, Paper 17): Evidentiary Objections Must Wait for Trial
- Lumentum v. Capella Photonics (IPR2015-00739): Updating the Real Party in Interest Is Not Jurisdictional
- Luv N' Care v. McGinley (IPR2017-01216): An Unpaid Fee, a Later Filing Date and the Time Bar
- Macauto v. BOS (IPR2012-00004, Paper 21): Termination after Settlement Is Discretionary
- Macauto v. Baumeister & Ostler (IPR2012-00004): A Notice of Defective Petition
- MasterImage 3D v. RealD (IPR2015-00040): Clarifying the Idle Free Motion-to-Amend Burden
- Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2012-00026, Paper 32): No Commercial-Success Discovery Without Nexus
- Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2012-00026, Paper 17): Instituting Review and Construing the Claims
- Microsoft v. Proxyconn (IPR2013-00109, Paper 15): Joining a Petitioner's Second IPR
- Motorola Mobility v. Arnouse (IPR2013-00010, Paper 20): Service of a Complaint Means Formal Service
- Nichia v. Emcore (IPR2012-00005): Conferring and Written Description Support for Substitute Claims
- Oracle v. Click-to-Call (IPR2013-00312): § 315(b) and a Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice
- Accord Healthcare v. Helsinn (PGR2014-00010): An Early Post-Grant Review Petition
- American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle (PGR2015-00003): An Early Post-Grant Review
- Proppant Express v. Oren Technologies (IPR2018-00914): Same-Party and Issue Joinder under § 315(c)
- Reflectix v. Promethean Insulation (IPR2015-00039): An Unnamed Parent as Real Party in Interest
- SAP v. Versata (CBM2012-00001, Paper 24): Protective Order, Discovery and Timing before Institution
- SAP v. Versata (CBM2012-00001, Paper 37): The Scheduling Order for the First CBM Trial
- SecureBuy v. CardinalCommerce (CBM2014-00035): A Prior Declaratory Judgment Action Bars Review
- Shaw Industries v. Automated Creel (IPR2013-00132, Paper 36): A Combined Oral Hearing Order
- Alice v. CLS Bank: From the Fractured En Banc Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court
- Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics (IPR2012-00042, Paper 49): An Early Trial Hearing Order
- TRW Automotive v. Magna Electronics (IPR2014-00293): A Proposed Amended Complaint Is Not Service of a Complaint
- Unified Patents v. Berman (IPR2016-01571): Applying § 325(d) Ground by Ground
- Unified Patents v. Parallel Iron (IPR2013-00639, Paper 7): Requirements for Pro Hac Vice Admission
- Valve v. Electronic Scripting Products (IPR2019-00062): General Plastic and Related Petitioners
- Western Digital v. SPEX (IPR2018-00082, -00084): Motion to Amend Guidance after Aqua Products
- Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance (CBM2014-00176): Estoppel Applies Claim by Claim
Decision categories
- PTAB Decisions
- PTAB Decisions on Evidence and Discovery
- Informative PTAB Decisions
- Other Key PTAB Decisions
- Representative PTAB Orders and Decisions
- Precedential PTAB Decisions
- PTAB Decisions on Institution
- PTAB Decisions on Motions to Amend
- Representative PTAB Notices
- PTAB Scheduling Orders
- PTAB Orders on Settlement
- PTAB Oral Hearing Orders