News & Analysis as of

Patents › CAFC › Patent Validity

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] Make It Plain: Clarity Regarding Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

BakerHostetler on

In a year defined by landmark decisions, impactful announcements and new standards, clarity in the patent world comes as a welcome relief. It arrived via a federal circuit court decision in August 2024 that settled certain...more

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

Federal Circuit Reaffirms “Carried Forward” Requirement for Provisional Priority in Reexams and Reissues

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

Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

CAFC’s Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...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