by Doug Pearson | Aug 11, 2017 | Estoppel
By Doug Pearson, Ph.D. Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were presented, but not...
by Geoffrey Gavin | May 23, 2017 | Estoppel
By Geoffrey Gavin and Marlee Hartenstein In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017. No....
by Geoffrey Gavin | Mar 10, 2017 | Estoppel
By Geoffrey Gavin In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103 based on prior art...
by David Cochran | Feb 20, 2017 | Estoppel, Trial Institution
By Rich Graham and Dave Cochran The Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw[1] affirmed the PTAB’s policy that a Petitioner was not estopped from requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) based on prior art previously included in a petition for IPR, but for which institution...
by Geoffrey Gavin | Jan 27, 2017 | Estoppel
By Geoffrey Gavin In Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-05501-SI, Dkt. No. 319 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) (Slip Op.), Judge Illston in the Northern District of California addressed the scope of statutory estoppel under § 315 in the context...
by Doug Pearson | Jan 18, 2017 | Estoppel
By Doug Pearson Among the thorny questions for an IPR petitioner is how estoppel may affect invalidity positions asserted by the petitioner/litigant in a parallel district court proceeding, given the grounds of unpatentability asserted by the petitioner in an IPR...
