News & Analysis as of

Estoppel Patent Invalidity International Trade Commission (ITC)

Jones Day

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Jones Day on

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

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

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

[Webinar] Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions - February 2nd, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

In conjunction with the release of the firm's year-in-review report, speakers will offer case summaries and analysis of the significant 2022 appellate rulings discussed in the report. Topics of the featured intellectual...more

Jones Day

PGR Estoppel Continues to be Broad and Onerous

Jones Day on

An ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recently issued an initial determination holding that PGR estoppel prevented GMG Products LLC (Respondent) from raising two prior-art products in the ITC....more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: IPR Estoppels: A Power Imbalance for Plaintiffs and Defendants

Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings raise complex estoppel issues that courts are grappling with and patent litigants must consider. Because patent challengers can assert invalidity in three different tribunals (the...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions

[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - August 2019

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2019)

The Federal Circuit again reviewed a determination of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, in this instance by the International Trade Commission (ITC), again finding that one of the Supreme Court's exceptions to...more

Jones Day

Update: Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?

Jones Day on

When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

ALJ Cheney Holds that IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to ITC Investigative Staff

In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more

Jones Day

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and...more

WilmerHale

What The Fed Circ. Says About IPR Estoppel

WilmerHale on

The inter partes review estoppel provision (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)) says that a petitioner (or real party in interest) in an IPR that results in a final written decision on a patent claim may not assert validity in a U.S. Patent...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

What "Reasonably" Could Have Been Raised in an Inter Partes Review?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Since their introduction, inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings have had a close association with district court litigation. Indeed, litigation defendants are often the petitioners who initiate IPR proceedings. Therefore,...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - March 2016

WilmerHale on

Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC (No. 2015-1999, 3/31/16) (Prost, Moore, Wallach) - Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents related to storage compartment for pickup trucks. The Court rejected...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

An Invalidity Argument Without a Home? The PTAB's Discretion to Ignore Grounds for Invalidity

Foley & Lardner LLP on

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & George C. Beck The post-grant proceedings established by the America Invents Act – inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM) review, and post-grant review (PGR) –promise faster,...more

19 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide