News & Analysis as of

Litigation Strategies › Statutory Interpretation › Patent Litigation

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook on

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

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

Sunstein LLP

Court’s Strict Interpretation of Timing Requirement May Force Patent Validity Challenges in Two Forums

Sunstein LLP on

The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

4 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide