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
The District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment which sought to invalidate a dependent claim on preclusion grounds based on the PTAB’s invalidation of the related...more
On September 28, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied all preliminary motions by Junior Party the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") and Senior Party...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
SynQor, Inc. appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding un- patentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 as...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
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to a webinar, "Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions," on Thursday, February 17, 2022. In conjunction with the release of the firm's...more
On February 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion) was applicable in inter partes reexamination proceedings. The case is SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.,...more
In SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., Case No. 19-1704 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated the inter partes reexamination decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). As part of the decision,...more
All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right? So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION - Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined...more
The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory...more
On Monday, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) heard oral argument (remotely) from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT) and Junior Party the University of...more
Samsung successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several of Papst’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437. Prior to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of the ’437 patent...more
A recent ruling from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) highlights the critical role that collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) can play in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In a final written...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected a patent owner’s argument that a forum selection clause found in a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) barred the Board from instituting a petition for inter partes review (IPR). ...more
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
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC - Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: District courts lack the authority to...more
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
Addressing the applicability of issue preclusion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent owner’s arguments on appeal were precluded based on similar...more
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
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
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
When faced with allegations of patent infringement at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a respondent must quickly evaluate whether or not to request an AIA review (hereinafter, inter partes review for convenience) at...more
On July 10, 2018, the PTAB informed the patent bar that they designated five decisions as informative for: issue preclusion; use of and versus or when referencing lists; DJ bar for joinder cases; depositions in foreign...more