News & Analysis as of

Prior Art International Trade Commission (ITC) Estoppel

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

Haug Partners LLP

The Many Flavors of Inter Partes Review Estoppel: A Review and Update

Haug Partners LLP on

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

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

[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.

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

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.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - August 2019: PTAB Extends Discretionary Denial Factors to Parallel ITC Proceedings

In IPR2019-00567 (Paper 23 at 29-30) and IPR2019-00568 (Paper 22 at 23-24), the PTAB, for potentially the first time, denied institution partially based on the Petitioner raising the same issues in its Petition that had been...more

Knobbe Martens

Discretionary Denial as a Case Management Tool: PTAB Requires Petitioner to Rank its Six IPR Petitions by Merit and then...

Knobbe Martens on

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS v. Iancu, which held that an IPR institution is an “all-or-nothing” proposition, the PTAB lost its ability to rely on “partial institutions” as a case management tool (e.g., by...more

Jones Day

ITC Provides a Way to Work Around IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

In In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1058 (ITC October 2, 2018, Order), Administrative Law Judge Cheney ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity...more

Jones Day

After SAS, Indefinite Claims Can Be A Definite Problem For IPR Petitioners

Jones Day on

The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more

WilmerHale

Strategic Considerations of Estoppel for IPRs After Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Systems

WilmerHale on

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - March 2016 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - Sequenom Seeks Supreme Court Review of Diagnostic Claims Held Invalid Under § 101 - On Monday, March 21, 2016, Sequenom, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa...more

16 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