News & Analysis as of

Assignor Estoppel Patents Patent Ownership

Womble Bond Dickinson

Inventor Assignments – Problems on the Horizon

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the rather arcane issue of assignor estoppel. Stop - I can figuratively feel your eyes rolling after reading the phase...more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - December 2018: Federal Circuit Holds No Assignor Estoppel in AIA Proceedings

Recently, the Federal Circuit held that an ex-employee (of Cisco) who founded a competitor (Arista) can challenge their own assigned patent, finding that, after assignment, they are not the patent owner. The Court held that...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Assignor Estoppel Is Not a Defense in IPR

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

2013 Decision on Assignor Estoppel Designated as Precedential by PTAB

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential its October 25, 2013, decision to institute inter partes review and declined to apply the doctrine of assignor estoppel as an exception to 35 U.S.C.§311(a). Section...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Designates As Precedential A Decision Finding Assignor Estoppel Is Not A Defense in IPRs

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB recently designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in IPR proceedings in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Knobbe Martens on

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

CAFC’s Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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