News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Appeals Estoppel

Troutman Pepper Locke

Federal Circuit Ruling Broadens Reach of Prosecution History Estoppel to Include Canceled Claims

Troutman Pepper Locke on

Prosecution history estoppel typically arises when a claim is rejected during prosecution and is then amended (narrowed) to overcome the rejection. However, in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, No....more

Lathrop GPM

Federal Circuit Says Claim Cancellation Can Create Prosecution History Estoppel

Lathrop GPM on

In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Valve turned: Prosecution history estoppel applies to closely related claims

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s infringement finding, concluding it was precluded by prosecution history estoppel. Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Case No. 23-2153 (Fed....more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more

A&O Shearman

The CAFC Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Shield Patentees From System Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments

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

ArentFox Schiff

Federal Circuit Refuses to Extend IPR Estoppel to Unadjudicated Patent Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that patentees in district court are not collaterally estopped from asserting claims that were not immaterially different...more

Snell & Wilmer

Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owners Bear IPR Estoppel Burden of Proof

Snell & Wilmer on

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

McDermott Will & Schulte

IPR Estoppel Applies to Claim Not Addressed During Pre-SAS Proceeding

In the companion district court case to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Thryv v. Click-to-Call decision regarding the scope of review for inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed...more

Jones Day

Coordinate Arguments To Avoid Procedural Bars

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the PTAB’s decision that estopped a Petitioner from maintaining a third IPR that challenged the same...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2022

Knobbe Martens on

Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement - In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Federal Circuit Tosses Shaw: IPR Estoppel Applies to All Claims, Grounds That Reasonably Could Have Been Raised

Addressing inter partes review (IPR) estoppel after the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2018 decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled its decision in Shaw...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - February 2022

The Federal Circuit issued numerous precedential opinions last week, two of which answered long simmering questions about inter partes reviews (IPRs). Below we discuss a case addressing whether admissions of prior art in the...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

The Skinny Label That Wasn’t—Federal Circuit Reinstates Induced Infringement Verdict

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement where substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of induced infringement by...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

PTAB Estoppel Decisions Under § 315(e)(1) Occurring After Institution Are Reviewable on Appeal

On March 9, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the no-appeal provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude appellate review of the PTAB’s estoppel determination under section 315(e)(1) when...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

Important 2020 Patent Law Decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Whether you are pursuing patents on your new technology, thinking about bringing patent infringement litigation or defending patent infringement claims in court, knowing the important developments in patent law will help you...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et....

Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2020 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1456, -1457 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2020) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed two novel issues following inter partes review...more

Goodwin

Issue Twenty-Six: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April #4

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-2054, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week features a new precedential decision dealing with the doctrine of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The Federal Circuit continued its recent willingness to affirm findings of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (see, e.g., "Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)"), in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v....more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Doctrine of Equivalents: Prosecution History Estoppel Can Be Both Amendment and Argument-Based

McDermott Will & Schulte on

In a case involving at-home glucose monitoring systems, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the patent owner was estopped from asserting a doctrine of equivalents theory of infringement based on subject...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

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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