Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
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
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
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
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
The Supreme Court, speaking through a five-justice majority, has reaffirmed the equitable principle of assignor estoppel while at the same time limiting its application in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. Assignor...more
On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court clarified the “boundaries” of the patent-law doctrine of assignor estoppel in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 594 U.S. (2021). The Court, in Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v....more
On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court limited the doctrine of assignor estoppel that has long prevented inventors from challenging the validity of patents they have assigned to a third party. ...more
On June 29, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 20-440 (June 29, 2021) (slip opinion). Minerva involves a challenge to the “assignor estoppel” doctrine, which is an...more
The Supreme Court upheld assignor estoppel in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al. but held that the Federal Circuit “failed to recognize the doctrine’s proper limits.” In doing so, the Court imposed new...more
MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. v. HOLOGIC, INC., et al. - Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion of the Court written by Justice Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion,...more
The judicially-derived patent-law doctrine of “assignor estoppel” prevents an inventor from assigning a patent to another for value and then later arguing in litigation that the patent is invalid. In Minerva Surgical Inc. v....more
The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the validity of doctrine of assignor estoppel but concluded that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit failed to recognize the boundaries of the doctrine. Minerva...more
Patent law is replete with arcane (and often judge-made) doctrines, such as the doctrine of equivalence and obviousness-type double patenting. In addition, long having been considered a property right (Oil States to the...more