News & Analysis as of

Estoppel United States Patent and Trademark Office

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Jones Day on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | July 2024

Knobbe Martens on

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

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: Federal Circuit Upholds IPR Estoppel Provisions

AEON Law on

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

Knobbe Martens

Estoppel Does Not Apply to Previously Issued Claims

Knobbe Martens on

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

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Estoppel Principles in Patent Office Proceedings

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Ordering In-Person Appearance to Testify Regarding Potential Fraud on the Court is within Court's...

WilmerHale on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Editors’ Introduction

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

Fish & Richardson

2023 Post-Grant Annual Report

Fish & Richardson on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

[Webinar] Developments in IPR Estoppel - December 5th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more

Jones Day

PTAB Doubles Down on Interference Estoppel Issue

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more

Haug Partners LLP

The Many Flavors of Inter Partes Review Estoppel: A Review and Update

Haug Partners LLP on

I. Introduction - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was years in the making.  From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 20052 until the final House and Senate debates in...more

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

The PREVAIL Act – Does it Unfairly Hinder Patent Challengers’ Possibility of Prevailing at the PTAB?

The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act was introduced on June 22, 2023, with the aim to reform the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PREVAIL Act serves as a...more

Fish & Richardson

Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023

Fish & Richardson on

Four subjects stood out in patent litigation in Texas in April 2023: (1) applicability of the customer-suit exception to the first-to-file rule; (2) the level of ties a reasonable royalty methodology must have to the facts of...more

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: PTAB: Claim Preclusion Doesn’t Apply to IPR Proceedings

AEON Law on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied VLSI’s motion to terminate Intel’s involvement in an inter partes review (IPR) of a VLSI patent. VLSI and Intel are engaged in a legal war across several jurisdictions....more

Locke Lord LLP

The Party Seeking IPR Estoppel Bears ‎the Burden to Prove Non-Petitioned Invalidity Grounds ‎‎Reasonably Could Have Been Raised

Locke Lord LLP on

In the April 3, 2023 decision in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, 21-2296, Doc. 66, the Federal Circuit provides crucial guidance regarding inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

[Ongoing Program] PTAB Session: Strategic Considerations Before Filing IPR Petitions - April 21st, 10:00 am - 11:00 am JST

We are committed to providing insightful commentary on IP developments from around the world to our Japanese clients. In light of that effort, we are continuing our free monthly webinar series, McDermott IP Focus. During...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Mulligans Here: PTO Rewinds Reexamination Based on Estoppel

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) terminated a pending ex parte reexamination after finding that the challenger was estopped because the prior art references could have been raised in a prior inter partes review (IPR)....more

Jones Day

Director Reviews Institution Decision Involving Interference Estoppel

Jones Day on

In Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199, the USPTO Director, Kathi Vidal, sua sponte granted review and affirmed the decision instituting trial over patent owner’s argument that the Board erred in its application of interference...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: The Resurgence and Perils of Ex Parte Reexaminations

Ex parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations. With the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) and the advent of inter partes reviews...more

McDermott Will & Emery

What Preclusion? Post-IPR Reexam Moves Forward

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived a petitioner’s validity challenge seeking ex parte review at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), reversing a district court decision dismissing its complaint seeking...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Editors' Introduction

Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Case - February 2022 #3

Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 2020-2102 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2022)- In an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the ex parte reexamination...more

Knobbe Martens

PTO Director’s Estoppel Decision Ending Reexam Is Subject to Judicial Review

Knobbe Martens on

ALARM.COM INC. v. HIRSHFELD - Before Taranto, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) permits judicial...more

76 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

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