Tag Archives: estoppel

SAS Institute: One Month In

We are now a little over a month since the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, where the Court held that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.”  As previously reported, the PTAB issued  Guidance … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit: Effect of Disclaimer Prior to Trial Institution

In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., slip op. 2017-1239, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to enter an adverse judgment following Patent Owner’s disclaimer of all claims challenged in an inter partes review petition before the institution of trial.  At the time of entering the adverse judgment, an estoppel effect … Continue reading this entry

Reduced Scope of Post-IPR Estoppel Imperils Litigation Stays

In Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 3-13-cv-00571 (NJD November 4, 2016, Mem. Op. Dkt. 238) (Bongiovanni, MJ), the Court analyzed and applied recent Federal Circuit decisions limiting the scope of post-IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) to only those claims and grounds subject to a final written decision from the PTAB.  … Continue reading this entry

Estoppel Prevents Second IPR Petition Even When New References Were Missed By First Search

In a case that appears to be a case of first impression, the PTAB found in its decision denying institution in IPR2016-00781 that a final written decision in an earlier IPR created estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), preventing a second IPR petition from being instituted that used additional references which reasonably could have been raised before, even though … Continue reading this entry

Estoppel Versus Discretion: How is the PTAB Deciding Multiple Petitions Against the Same Patent?

The PTAB has denied petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same claims, even where the subsequent petition relied upon completely different prior art (IPR2014-00506), reasoning that a petitioner should not hold back its best references for a subsequent attempt.  But what happens when the same petitioner files a new petition (after a first petition is denied) against … Continue reading this entry

An Invalidity Argument Without a Home? The PTAB's Discretion to Ignore Grounds for Invalidity

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & George C. Beck The post-grant proceedings established by the America Invents Act – inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM) review, and post-grant review (PGR) –promise faster, less expensive results as compared to district court litigation, and an adjudicative body with expertise in patent law. A significant tradeoff to these … Continue reading this entry