News & Analysis as of

Patent Invalidity Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Appeals

Jones Day

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Jones Day on

On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more

Morgan Lewis

Public Use and Estoppel Reexamined: Strategic Lessons from Ingenico

Morgan Lewis on

This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Scope of IPR Estoppel

WilmerHale on

In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more

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

A&O Shearman

The CAFC Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Shield Patentees From System Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Federal Circuit Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more

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

Ingenico: Federal Circuit Narrows the Scope of IPR Estoppel Under § 315(e)(2)

On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that narrows the scope of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), resolving a longstanding district...more

Paul Hastings LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of IPR Estoppel

Paul Hastings LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of statutory estoppel that applies in District Court after the PTAB issues a final written decision in a related inter partes review (IPR). Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No....more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Interprets IPR Estoppel Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to Permit at Trial Invalidity Theories Based on Prior Use or...

Venable LLP on

On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...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

Jones Day

INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case

Jones Day on

On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768 Patent...more

Jenner & Block

Inter Partes Review Invalidity Finding Does Not Collaterally Estopell Assertion of Unchallenged Claims in Same Patent

Jenner & Block on

In a February 10, 2025 order, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine to patent claims asserted in a district court infringement action where other claims in the same...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 25, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: PTAB Decision of Invalidity Cannot Estop District Court Litigation on Different Claims from the Same Patent, Even...

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.

Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision On Unpatentability, With The PTO Stepping In After Appellee Withdrew

A&O Shearman on

On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Fintiv Guidelines for Post-Grant Proceedings Involving Parallel District Court Litigation

On March 24, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) released new guidance that clarifies application of the Fintiv factors when reviewing validity challenges simultaneously asserted at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more

Sunstein LLP

Collateral (Patent) Damage Undone by Federal Circuit?

Sunstein LLP on

In Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon, The Federal Circuit issued a decision that should come as a comfort to patent owners, addressing the interplay between decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending March 21, 2025

Alston & Bird on

AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. 2023-1997 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 19, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Bryson. DMF owns a patent directed to a compact recessed lighting system that can be installed in a standard...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Construing Unambiguous Claim Language and Qualifying Challenged Expert as POSITA

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more

188 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 8

"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