Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn -- Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure)
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
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
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
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion - In Inguran, LLC Dba Stgenetics v. Abs Global, Inc., Genus Plc, Appeal No. 22-1385, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim...more
On June 2, 2023,the PTAB held the standard enunciated in Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) applies to claim preclusion determinations. This was yet another decision in the ongoing battle...more
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
In a relatively quiet third quarter of 2020, the Federal Circuit decided issues on joinder, estoppel, claim preclusion, and importantly, upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board process finding that cancellation of patent...more
In reversing a district court decision as to whether a validity issue remained justiciable after the challenged claims were disclaimed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the patent owner’s...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
In IPR2019-00567 (Paper 23 at 29-30) and IPR2019-00568 (Paper 22 at 23-24), the PTAB, for potentially the first time, denied institution partially based on the Petitioner raising the same issues in its Petition that had been...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
In Re Brandt (No. 2016-2601, 3/27/18) (Lourie, Reyna, Taranto) - Reyna, J. Affirming PTAB rejection of application claims for obviousness. “Based on Appellants' many concessions that there is no meaningful difference...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In SimpleAir, Inc. v Google LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - Claim Construction in PTAB Order Denying Petition for Inter Partes Review Does Not Have Preclusive Effect in District Court - On December 15, 2015, Judge Sleet in the District Court for the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated a decision granting a request for additional discovery as an informative opinion. Informative opinions are not binding; they rather provide guidance on rules and...more
As reported in our September 23 Client Alert, the Supreme Court is set to hear argument on December 2 on the issue of whether likelihood of confusion findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) are entitled to...more
In advising clients and making strategic decisions about whether to bring or defend inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), trademark practitioners need to consider carefully whether...more