by Tom Ritchie | Jan 31, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, PTAB News
By Tom Ritchie – In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its post-grant review...
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 26, 2023 | Estoppel, Final Written Decisions, PTAB News
By Anthony Kim*, Evan Jones, and Matt Johnson – 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,...
by Marc S. Blackman | Jul 6, 2023 | Estoppel, PTAB News
By Marc Blackman and Ruth Brindel* – In decisions rare of their kind, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) terminated two ex parte reexaminations in view of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by a different party. The decisions represent...
by John Marlott | Jul 5, 2023 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News
By John Marlott and John Wright – The Supreme Court will not consider a challenge to the proper scope of AIA statutory estoppel, leaving the Federal Circuit’s governing interpretation in place. The Court’s June 26, 2023 order list denied the pending petition for...
by Josh Nightingale | May 5, 2023 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit
By Josh Nightingale – Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a patent challenger in an inter partes review (IPR) that reaches a final written decision is estopped from arguing in a district court or the ITC that the challenged patent is invalid based on grounds that were...
by John Marlott | Mar 16, 2023 | Estoppel, Other News
By John Marlott and Sachin Patel* – What invalidity grounds is a petitioner barred from raising in parallel district court or ITC litigation after the petitioner previously challenged the patent and the PTAB has issued a final written decision? The U.S. Supreme...
