News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Collateral Estoppel Appeals

Jenner & Block

Inter Partes Review Invalidity Finding Does Not Collaterally Estopell Assertion of Unchallenged Claims in Same Patent

Jenner & Block on

In a February 10, 2025 order, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine to patent claims asserted in a district court infringement action where other claims in the same...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: PTAB Decision of Invalidity Cannot Estop District Court Litigation on Different Claims from the Same Patent, Even...

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Sunstein LLP

Collateral (Patent) Damage Undone by Federal Circuit?

Sunstein LLP on

In Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon, The Federal Circuit issued a decision that should come as a comfort to patent owners, addressing the interplay between decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that  all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more

Hudnell Law Group

Differing Burdens of Proof Limits Estoppel Effect of PTAB Final Written Decision

Hudnell Law Group on

On February 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., reversing and remanding a district court ruling that had dismissed Kroy’s patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Claim Assertion After PTAB Unpatentability Decisions

On February 10, the Federal Circuit held in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. that a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluding that certain claims are unpatentable does not prevent the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A New Vision: Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Extend to Related Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Beware Equitable Doctrine of Issue Preclusion in Multiparty, Multivenue Patent Campaigns

Addressing for the first time whether an invalidity order merges with a voluntary dismissal for purposes of finality, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an interlocutory order merges with the final...more

McDermott Will & Emery

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - May 2023: Beware of Collateral Estoppel at the PTAB

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Applying Collateral Estoppel in IPRs

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether a dependent claim invalidated by collateral estoppel also invalidates its parental independent claim. Google LLC v. Hammond Devel. Int’l, Inc., Case No....more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[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

McDermott Will & Emery

Collaterally Estopped: Do Not Re-Examine the Same Issues

In an appeal from an inter partes re-examination of a patent having both original and newly presented claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a decision in earlier inter partes reexaminations of...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2021

SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1704 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that common law collateral estoppel could arise from a factual determination made in...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals From The PTAB: Summaries of Key 2019 Decisions: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components...

Semiconductor Components, doing business as ON Semiconductor, petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several claims of Power Integration’s U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - January 2020: IPR Kills Another Jury Verdict

In Personal Audio, the Federal Circuit upheld a district court judgment dismissal of a jury verdict for patent owner throwing out a $1.3 million judgement because the patent was later invalidated at the PTAB. Patent owner...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - January 2020

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Collateral estoppel does not attach to PTAB invalidity determination pending appeal

Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - September 2019: PTAB Further Clarifies DJ Action Time Bar and Statutory Disclaimers

The PTAB designated at least three more decisions as precedential. Of note, two of the cases rely on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Click to Call, which is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court on December 9,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2019 #2

Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2214 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) In a significant case in the field of design patents, the Federal Circuit clarified the scope of design patent infringement...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Pre-Institution Merger Creates Time Bar Under § 315(b)

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time whether real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) are evaluated at the time a petition is filed or at the time of institution for purposes of § 315(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held...more

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

Federal Circuit clarifies that a post-filing change in RPI status can trigger the § 315(b) time-bar

Federal Circuit clarifies that a post-filing change in RPI status can trigger the § 315(b) time-bar and that there are exceptions to issue preclusion in IPR appeals - On June 13, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Vedder Price

The Federal Circuit Applies Issue Preclusion to IPRs (And Further Calls Into Question Long-Standing Precedent Against Issue...

Vedder Price on

On May 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Papst Licensing GmbH v. Samsung Elec. America, Inc. In that case, the Federal Circuit confirmed, based on the issue preclusion principles laid out...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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