Estoppel

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Review | April 2016

Federal Circuit Upholds Broad Scope of CBM Review and Explains that an Internet Reference Must be Indexed by a Search Engine to Qualify as a Prior Art Publication - In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Appeal Nos....more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - April 2016

Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd. (No. 2015-1909, 4/22/16) (Taranto, Schall, Chen) - Taranto, J. Vacating judgment on the pleadings dismissing cases for inadequately pleading divided infringement and remanding for...more

Patent Owners Now Estopped From Relying On PTAB Estoppel

A recent Federal Circuit decision on a writ of mandamus as to the scope of the estoppel provided in 35 U.S.C § 315(e) appears to be contrary to the scope that practitioners and the legislators had in mind when the America...more

Florida Appellate Court Bolsters Statutory HOA Safe Harbor

A significant opinion from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal further clarifies the extent of the Florida statutory homeowners association (HOA) “safe harbor.” In the end, entities that obtain title through judicial...more

District Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses of Laches, Waiver, Estoppel and Acquiescence for Lack of Sufficient Detail

After the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. ("Defendant") for patent infringement, the Defendant filed its an answer raising a series of affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's...more

Strategic Considerations of Estoppel for IPRs After Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...more

Estoppel is Not Invoked Simply Because Prior Art is Cumulative

After an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is completed, validity and/or infringement of the patent may subsequently be determined by a U.S. district court. This situation...more

Estoppel Does Not Attach When Petitioner’s Grounds Are Denied As Redundant

Under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1), a petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent that has resulted in a final written decision by the Board may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Patent Office with...more

Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds estoppel by deed applies to oil and gas leases

In the Court’s first decision on oil and gas issues since three new justices were elected, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that the doctrine of estoppel by deed applies to oil and gas leases. In Shedden v....more

What "Reasonably" Could Have Been Raised in an Inter Partes Review?

Since their introduction, inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings have had a close association with district court litigation. Indeed, litigation defendants are often the petitioners who initiate IPR proceedings. Therefore,...more

We’ll Say it Again: Redundancy is not Reviewable

In HP Inc., v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, [2015-1427] (April 5, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00309, agreeing that all but one challenged claim (claim 13) of U.S. Patent...more

Federal Circuit Recognizes an Exception to Inter Partes Review Estoppel Provisions

On March 23, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision endorsing an exception to the estoppel provisions for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C § 315(e). Shaw Industry Group, Inc. v. Automated...more

Stent Contract Collapses Standing Argument - TriReme Med., LLC v. AngioScore, Inc.

Addressing the issue of when patent rights are assigned under a contract, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the district court’s finding that a prospective inventor had surrendered his rights to an...more

PA Opinion Reassures Stakeholders That Estoppel By Deed Applies to Oil and Gas Leases

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recently confirmed that the doctrine of estoppel by deed applies to oil and gas leases and does not require detrimental reliance. See Shedden v. Anadarko, No. 103 MAP 2014, --- Pa. ---...more

Second Time Is The Charm For Kyle Bass Challenges Of Ampyra Patents

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has decided to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against the Ampyra patents based on the second set of petitions filed by Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable...more

Federal Circuit Carves Out Exception to IPR Estoppel Provisions

The Federal Circuit recently held that petitioners will not be estopped from raising in subsequent proceedings any noninstituted grounds deemed “redundant” by the Board or otherwise denied without meritorious consideration....more

The Estoppel Effects of IPR May Be Significantly Limited

A recent case at the Federal Circuit seems to significantly limit the estoppel effect of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) that is instituted on some grounds, but not all. The case adds another arrow in the strategic quiver of...more

Federal Circuit Limits Estoppel Provision of the AIA

On March 23, 2016, the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the estoppel provision for inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) contained in Section 315 of the American Invents Act. The Court relied on the plain reading of “during”...more

Estoppel Does Not Apply to Uninstituted Grounds

In Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., [2015-1116, -1119] (March 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the USPTO’s final written decision regarding claims...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - March 2016

Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC (No. 2015-1999, 3/31/16) (Prost, Moore, Wallach) - Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents related to storage compartment for pickup trucks. The Court rejected...more

IP Newsflash - March 2016 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - Sequenom Seeks Supreme Court Review of Diagnostic Claims Held Invalid Under § 101 - On Monday, March 21, 2016, Sequenom, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa...more

Patent Due Diligence: All That Glitters May Not Be PTAB Gold

An obvious but sometimes overlooked item when conducting patent due diligence is to check for PTAB proceedings (CBM, IPR, or PGR). Although the Patent Application Information Retrieval System (PAIR) does show whether patents...more

Federal Circuit Tells Affected Parties Not to Fear Its Ever-Expanding Refusal to Review Post-Grant Institution Decisions

In a closely watched appeal from the Patent Office in an inter partes review (IPR), the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Wallach) gave a nod to parties who receive favorable institution decisions from the Patent...more

Federal Circuit Limits Estoppel Arising Out of an Inter Partes Review

On March 23, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315 do not extend to grounds rejected by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in a decision...more

N.D. Ill. Decision Defines the Scope of Estoppel Arising Out of an Inter Partes Review

On March 18, 2016, Judge Lefkow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not extend to prior art that was not reasonably available during...more

131 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×