Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
The Federal Circuit recently clarified in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not extend to physical systems described in prior art patents or printed publications....more
In Ingenico v. IOENGINE, No. 2023-1367 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025), the Federal Circuit resolved a long-standing split among District Courts in favor of petitioners regarding inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Key Takeaways - - A recent Federal Circuit decision in a case involving an inter partes review (IPR) significantly narrowed a patentee’s ability to rely on estoppel to block a defendant from raising invalidity grounds. -...more
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
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
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
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
Contour IP Holdings, LLC, v. GoPro, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04738-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2025) - The estoppel provision of the American Invents Act (AIA) (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) prevents a petitioner in an inter parties...more
Estoppel certification in reexamination prevents relitigation of resolved issues....more
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...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
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...more
Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of...more
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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
I. Introduction - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was years in the making. From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 20052 until the final House and Senate debates in...more
In an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit confirmed that on the issue of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, the burden of proof rests on the patentee to...more
Derivation Showing Overcome by Evidence of Respondent’s Prior Conception in Rare Derivation Proceeding - The Board issued a decision in a rare derivation proceeding filed by Global Health Solutions LLC (“Petitioner”)...more
A recent Federal Circuit opinion clarified that patent owners carry the burden of proving that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel applies to invalidity grounds not included in their IPR petitions. The Federal Circuit also...more
The Federal Circuit recently held, for the first time, that patent owners bear the burden of proof for an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Estoppel affirmative defense that an alleged infringer failed to include prior art in a...more
On April 3, in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., the Federal Circuit articulated a standard for applying inter partes review (IPR) estoppel on grounds a petitioner “reasonably could have raised” under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Yesterday, in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023), the Federal Circuit held that for estoppel to apply under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a patent holder must prove, by a preponderance...more
IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORP. Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: The patentee has the burden of proving that...more
Speakers will offer updates, case summaries, and analysis of the significant 2022 PTAB guidance, actions, and rulings. Topics include: the Director’s 2022 Fintiv guidance, PTAB discretionary denial, the use of applicant...more