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
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
2/20/2024
/ Appeals ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Proposed Legislation
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET.
The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more
11/30/2023
/ Claim Preclusion ,
Continuing Legal Education ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO ,
Webinars
Intuitive filed three IPR petitions, all on the same day, challenging Ethicon’s endoscopic surgical instrument patent. The petitions challenged overlapping claims based on different combinations of prior art references. The...more
Caltech sued Broadcom and Apple for infringement, asserting three of its data transmission patents against Broadcom’s WiFi chips and certain Apple products that incorporate those chips. Apple then filed IPR petitions...more
2/14/2023
/ Apple ,
Broadcom ,
Estoppel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
2/8/2023
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Anticipation ,
Apple ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Article III ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Broadcom ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Production ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Consent Order ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
Google ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Joint Inventors ,
Jurisdiction ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Motion to Amend ,
Motion to Terminate ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 112 ,
Separation of Powers ,
Standing ,
Statutory Authority ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Testimony ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions