Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
If the agreement between a creditor and debtor refers disputes to arbitration, what limits should be placed on the creditor to pursue winding-up proceedings based on an unpaid debt under that agreement? Should a court simply...more
Professional liability claims impact a multitude of professions, including those in the legal, medical, financial and insurance industries. Claims for malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
The circumstances in which an unsuccessful party in arbitration may resist enforcement of an award in the Cayman Islands are limited in number and narrow in scope. The judiciary are alive to the risk that parties may run...more
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concerning the application of 37 CFR § 42.73(d)(3)(i)’s estoppel provisions in invalidating amended patent claims....more
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
On July 26, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld and expounded on the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). The CAFC confirmed that the Patent...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. BACKERTOP LICENSING LLC [OPINION] (23-2367, 23-2368, 24-1016, 24-1017 Prost, Hughes, and Stoll) - Hughes, J. The Court affirmed the District Court’s orders (1)...more
Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...more
Takeaways From a Recent English Court Case on Notice Obligations - Many construction contracts provide that the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time and/or additional cost is conditional upon the service of a...more
We previously reported on the litigation brought by ModernaTX, Inc. and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively, “Moderna”) against BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech US Inc. (collectively, “BioNTech”), and Pfizer Inc....more
Addressing an issue of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that two medications that contain the same ingredients but are packaged in different forms constitute separate markets for...more
Earlier this month, in Herrera v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., a divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s order denying Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd.’s motion to compel arbitration of a putative class action...more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
The Pennsylvania courts examine paternity issues by assessing the applicability and potential rebuttal of the presumption of paternity. If this presumption is irrelevant or refuted, the court evaluates the application of...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its...more
The owners hired a general contractor (GC) insured by Amerisure to build a movie theatre, and the GC hired a masonry subcontractor (Sub) insured by Selective under a primary and umbrella policy...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...more
On December 21, 2023, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied GeigTech East Bay LLC’s (“GeigTech”) motion to preclude Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”) from raising an affirmative defense of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2),...more
Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of...more
Eleven years ago, I foretold potential issues arising from California's repeal of the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act in favor the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Since that gloomy...more