The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously...more
The Western District of Texas recently denied a defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review based in part on the defendant’s status as a non-party in the IPR proceedings. In doing so, the district court focused on...more
In a decision denying summary judgment, the District of Massachusetts weighed in on an unsettled issue: whether after receiving a final written decision in an inter partes review, a patent challenger is permitted to raise...more
In an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit confirmed that on the issue of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, the burden of proof rests on the patentee to...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, holding that obviousness defenses based on a prior art product could not be asserted because a prior art...more
2/3/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Summary Judgment
A Central District of California judge recently granted summary judgment of no obviousness based on inter partes review (IPR) estoppel because the only prior art references used to challenge patent validity could have been...more
1/31/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Summary Judgment
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pleadings ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
Section 101
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
In an April 12, 2018 decision, the District Court for the District of Delaware held that a change in the primary reference of an obviousness combination that was denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more
A district court judge recently addressed the scope of estoppel for a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR). Specifically, the court clarified the meaning of a “ground for invalidity” as it relates to the estoppel effect...more