Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
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
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
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
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
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
[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 Eastern District of Texas has rejected a plaintiff’s argument that if a patent owner concedes in an inter partes review (IPR) that a prior art reference discloses all elements of a patent claim, the reference necessarily...more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
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 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
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to decide a case which may create new estoppel concerns for AIA petitioners under 35 USC § 315(e)(2). The appeal resulted from a Hatch-Waxman litigation in BTG v. Amneal,...more
As the boundaries of estoppel post-SAS continue to unfold, one court has found that if a petitioner’s time for appealing a PTAB partial-institution decision had not yet run out at the time that SAS was handed down, then the...more
The court in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs All. Corp., No. 14:cv-12298, 2018 WL 283893 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2018) denied summary judgement of no invalidity, finding that the Federal Circuit’s holding in Shaw forecloses a...more
In Oil-Dri Corporates of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, the court recently held that a defendant who has filed a parallel inter partes review (IPR) petition is estopped from raising invalidity grounds in the...more
Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc. articulated that a petitioner is not estopped from relying on a ground on which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined...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
On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more
In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently identified a logical fallacy in the “statutory estoppel” jurisprudence with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). According to the...more
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
Federal Circuit Upholds Broad Scope of CBM Review and Explains that an Internet Reference Must be Indexed by a Search Engine to Qualify as a Prior Art Publication - In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Appeal Nos....more
The Federal Circuit recently held that petitioners will not be estopped from raising in subsequent proceedings any noninstituted grounds deemed “redundant” by the Board or otherwise denied without meritorious consideration....more