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
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
When thinking about estoppel and the PTAB, the § 315(e) estoppels—relating to grounds a petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised—are likely the first to come to mind. However, other types of estoppel, such as...more
The Federal Circuit recently held, for the first time, that patent owners bear the burden of proof for an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Estoppel affirmative defense that an alleged infringer failed to include prior art in a...more
Addressing for the first time the standard and burden of proof for the “reasonably could have raised” requirement for inter partes review (IPR) estoppel to apply, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that...more
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
As part of our series looking at recent BVI and Cayman Islands cases affecting the Middle East we look at the recent case of Sheikha Amena Ahmed H.A. Al-thani et al v Sheikha Aisha Mohammed Ali Abdullah Al Thani et al, in...more
In the companion district court case to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Thryv v. Click-to-Call decision regarding the scope of review for inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed...more
In an opinion related to its 2021 ruling that a decision in earlier inter partes reexaminations of related patents had a preclusive effect that collaterally estopped the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) from making new...more
In a recent decision, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the PTAB’s decision that estopped a Petitioner from maintaining a third IPR that challenged the same...more
In Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) can apply as between concurrently filed inter partes review (IPR)...more
In a setback for climate change claimants, on 15 March 2022 a three-judge panel of the Full Federal Court of Australia overturned the earlier decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Sharma v Minister for the...more
It’s common for a plaintiff to file a lawsuit despite a contract dictating that the claims are governed by an arbitration clause. And it’s common for a defendant to then file a motion to stay the litigation to kick the...more
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement - In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an errata to its opinion in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, clarifying that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e) does not...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) did not err in finding that a petitioner was estopped from maintaining a third inter partes review (IPR) of a patent claim...more
Facebook filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against claims 1–8 of Uniloc 2017 LLC’s patent on Voice over Internet Protocol. Meanwhile, an IPR proceeding was already pending on claims 1–6 and 8 of the same patent,...more
Addressing inter partes review (IPR) estoppel after the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2018 decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled its decision in Shaw...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The Federal Circuit issued numerous precedential opinions last week, two of which answered long simmering questions about inter partes reviews (IPRs). Below we discuss a case addressing whether admissions of prior art in the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement where substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of induced infringement by...more