I. Minerva Surgical v. Hologic: Background - The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion earlier this year in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. clarifying the “in public...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. provides a timeline reminder to inventors and patent applicants: Do not bring your invention into public view before you have filed your patent...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims of a patent are barred because the device sought to be patented was demonstrated at a trade show. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic,...more
This is an appeal from a District of Delaware summary judgment order that held that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208 (the ’208 Patent) are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). ...more
Minerva and Hologic, competitors selling devices used for ablating uterine endometrial tissue, are notable for their dispute last year that gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to reassess an established patent law doctrine,...more
For most of us, we’re stuck in the August heat, on delayed European vacations, or hopefully just hanging out at the beach. But for the Court it still was work as usual, including a return trip to the Federal Circuit for the...more
The inventor of a patent assigned to Hologic subsequently founded Minerva Surgical. Hologic then filed a continuation with broader claims. Based on that broader patent, Hologic brought an infringement case against Minerva,...more
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 exception. It briefly returned to live...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
Takeaways - Minerva Surgical v. Hologic limits the application of assignor estoppel, which bars inventor-assignors from challenging patents they obtained. If a buyer-assignee later expands the scope of its claim, under...more
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 opinion, that the doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to apply, but only for an assignor’s invalidity assertion that contradicts explicit or...more
An inventor develops an invention, files a patent application and assigns the application for value to the company they founded. Later, the inventor founds another company and develops an improved version of their original...more
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. V. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court limited the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel that prevents an assignor from subsequently challenging the validity of the patent he or she assigned. The...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case resolving a patent dispute between two medical device companies, Hologic, Inc. and Minerva Surgical. The opinion was closely watched because it raised the question of whether an...more
On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision retained the doctrine of assignor estoppel. However, the Court also held that “the Federal Circuit has applied the doctrine too expansively.” Accordingly, the Supreme...more
Sounds like an odd combination—enforceability of make-whole and post-petition interest and patent law. It is. But relevant nonetheless. Recall that a key argument in the ongoing Ultra Petroleum dispute regarding the...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. has drastically limited the doctrine of assignor estoppel, requiring patent practitioners to reconsider assignment and other contractual provisions...more
The doctrine of assignor estoppel bars an inventor who assigns a patent to a third party from later arguing that the assigned patent is invalid. The Supreme Court has now upheld this doctrine but has limited its scope,...more
The Supreme Court clarified the doctrine of assignor estoppel in its June 29th Minerva v. Hologic opinion. In doing so, the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s opinion estopping Minerva from arguing that Hologic’s patent is...more
On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court published its divisive opinion in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Et. Al. The 5-4 decision penned by Justice Kagan upheld the centuries-old doctrine of Assignor Estoppel, while...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. has important implications for inventors who assign patent rights, employers to whom employees assign patent rights, other assignees, and...more
In a decision reaching all corners of the technology sector, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2021 held that, when fairness requires, a patent inventor can contest a patent's validity after assigning it to a third party....more
Contrary to some predictions, assignor estoppel did not suffer the same fate in the hands of the Supreme Court as licensee estoppel in Lear v. Adkins. In fact, the doctrine, which essentially boils down to limiting an...more
Rooted in the principle of fairness, the doctrine of assignor estoppel generally prevents an inventor, who had previously assigned their patent rights to another for value, from later contesting the validity of the assigned...more