News & Analysis as of

Litigation Strategies Prior Art Estoppel

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

A Line in the Sand: Federal Circuit Bounds IPR Estoppel in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC: Federal Circuit Resolves the IPR Estoppel Split

In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Virtual Conference] PTAB Practice Briefing - December 2nd, 10:00 am - 6:00 pm EST

Year-End Analysis and Future Forecasts on the Most Significant Developments Impacting Post-Grant Proceedings. Attend ACI’s inaugural PTAB Practice Briefing virtually on December 2nd for in-depth discussions and year-end...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - October 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

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - September 2020: Snap Shot Summer 2020 - Recent Trends in Applying 315(e)/325(e) Estoppel

This month we first refresh our readers on Shaw and SAS, and then we will look at two recent exemplary cases that we feel are illustrative of the current trends for petitioner estoppel.   We will show that the trend in the...more

Jones Day

The Scope Of IPR Petitioner Estoppel For Non-Petitioned Grounds Remains Uncertain

Jones Day on

There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Denies Apple's Motion to Withdraw IPR Petition and Motion for Joinder

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,...more

WilmerHale

Strategic Considerations of Estoppel for IPRs After Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems

WilmerHale on

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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