During a Markman hearing, a judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a plaintiff’s request that the defendant be judicially estopped from arguing claim constructions that were different from positions the...more
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings can give rise to statutory and collateral estoppel. But these two bases for estoppel attach at different times, which can lead to asymmetrical outcomes in related district court...more
A district court has ruled that the exclusive statute for determining venue in patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), did not override the parties prior agreement on where suit could be brought. The court also ruled that transfer...more
In a recent inter partes review (IPR), a patent owner overcame a facially persuasive obviousness challenge by relying on evidence from an earlier litigation to establish objective indicia of nonobviousness.
In RTI...more
A district court has ruled that the statutory estoppel arising from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding does not apply to anticipation and obviousness defenses that rely significantly on a physical device. The court also...more
The District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia recently found method of treatment claims directed to treating a specific disease at a specific dose invalid for lack of written description based on the context...more
7/6/2020
/ Evidence ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Treatment Method Patents ,
Written Descriptions
Declaratory judgment (“DJ”) actions have fallen out of favor in patent cases in recent years. In 2011, DJ complaints made up approximately 11 percent of all patent cases filed that year. Last year, they made up less than 5...more
An accused infringer in a district court case could not take advantage of a prior claim construction ruling from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving unasserted claims of the same patent. The Patent Trial and...more
Relying heavily on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of an inter partes review (IPR) petition involving the patent-in-suit, a court in the Eastern District of Virginia recently refused to let the defendant amend its...more
When bringing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, careful pleading may allow plaintiffs to avoid the restrictions against later seeking inter partes review (IPR) of that patent, while also...more
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has denied defendants’ motion to stay the post-trial phase of a patent infringement litigation pending ex parte reexamination where the request for reexamination was filed four...more
3/6/2020
/ Administrative Remedies ,
Collateral Attack ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion To Stay ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Post Trial Motions ,
USPTO
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, holding that obviousness defenses based on a prior art product could not be asserted because a prior art...more
2/3/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Summary Judgment
Chief Judge Saris of the District of Massachusetts has granted-in-part a product manufacturer’s motion seeking summary judgment of claim preclusion based on patentee’s prior assertion of the same patent against a component...more
12/27/2019
/ Claim Preclusion ,
Defense Strategies ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Manufacturers ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Suppliers
Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas has denied a motion seeking foreign discovery from a third party pursuant to the Hague Convention, holding that the movant waited too long to seek such discovery. The...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a patent owner’s time-bar challenge to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, holding that the patent owner failed to provide sufficient details to establish proper service of a complaint for...more
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pleadings ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
Section 101
A district court has denied a request to amend patent infringement contentions to add claims obtained through ex parte reexamination after the case had been substantially narrowed through a parallel inter partes review (IPR)...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected a patent owner’s argument that a forum selection clause found in a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) barred the Board from instituting a petition for inter partes review...more
10/21/2019
/ Equitable Estoppel ,
Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion to Transfer ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Samsung
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.
In September...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
9/9/2019
/ Appeals ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Disclaimers ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Vacated
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) panel has determined that emailing a proposed amended complaint is not “service of a complaint” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
On January 23, 2018, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc....more
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 (the “’079 Patent”) on the grounds that the inter partes review (IPR) petition was time-barred as a result of a merger between the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a Petitioner’s request for institution of inter partes review (IPR) of claims that were added during ex parte reexamination because it found the IPR petitions were time-barred...more