Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
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
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
In conjunction with the release of the firm's year-in-review report, speakers will offer case summaries and analysis of the significant 2022 appellate rulings discussed in the report. Topics of the featured intellectual...more
An ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recently issued an initial determination holding that PGR estoppel prevented GMG Products LLC (Respondent) from raising two prior-art products in the ITC....more
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings raise complex estoppel issues that courts are grappling with and patent litigants must consider. Because patent challengers can assert invalidity in three different tribunals (the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...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 PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to largely continue its operations....more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...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
The Federal Circuit again reviewed a determination of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, in this instance by the International Trade Commission (ITC), again finding that one of the Supreme Court's exceptions to...more
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS v. Iancu, which held that an IPR institution is an “all-or-nothing” proposition, the PTAB lost its ability to rely on “partial institutions” as a case management tool (e.g., by...more
The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently denied Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.’s motion to stay litigation pending resolution of parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before...more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more
In In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1058 (ITC October 2, 2018, Order), Administrative Law Judge Cheney ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those...more
The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and...more
8 Ways To Avoid Inter Partes Review Estoppel - Inter partes review has become an enormously popular method of challenging patents. One important downside of filing for IPR, however, is that, if the petitioner loses, it...more
On June 21, Senators Chris Coons (D-Del), Tom Cotton (R-Ark), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), and Mazie Hironoa (D-Hawaii) introduced the “Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of...more
The inter partes review estoppel provision (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)) says that a petitioner (or real party in interest) in an IPR that results in a final written decision on a patent claim may not assert validity in a U.S. Patent...more