Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
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
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more
In the fourth and final post on our series on Disputes 101 we look at boilerplate provisions on: entire agreements, non-reliance, oral variation (aka oral modification) and waiver. Entire agreement and non-reliance - Entire...more
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
The concept of transnational issue estoppel is well established under English law. Until recently, English courts had not yet had occasion to consider whether transnational issue estoppel could apply in the context of the...more
Boren Descendants et al v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, LTD, offers something to talk about beyond interpretation of the fixed-or-floating NPRI question. At issue was this reservation, expressed as a double fraction, in a 1933...more
In response to a lawsuit for patent infringement, often a defendant will file an inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of the asserted claims. How can a patentee avoid this scenario?...more
Tell me if you have heard this one before: ten companies are sued by a former employee as “joint employers”, even though the employee technically worked for, and signed a binding arbitration agreement with, only one of them....more
Entire agreement clauses are very common. This recent decision confirms their effectiveness: JMW Solicitors v Injury Lawyers 4U. Background – shareholder dispute - Some firms of solicitors, including JMW, set up a...more
Introduction - “No one has a vested interest in any rule of common law.” Meech v. Hillhaven W., 776 P.2d 488, 494 (Mont. 1989). Luckily the Montana legislature has codified the common law rule of after-acquired title as a...more
The judge provided further guidance on the English court’s approach to jurisdictional issues, finding on this set of facts that the UNCITRAL tribunal had properly exercised its jurisdiction in rendering its award. This post...more
On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent application, and printed...more
Amongst the many decisions an attorney makes throughout litigation, there is one choice that can shape the outcome of a case way before filing a motion, setting discovery and trial strategy, or even calling a witness: venue,...more
The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously...more
If the agreement between a creditor and debtor refers disputes to arbitration, what limits should be placed on the creditor to pursue winding-up proceedings based on an unpaid debt under that agreement? Should a court simply...more
Professional liability claims impact a multitude of professions, including those in the legal, medical, financial and insurance industries. Claims for malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
The circumstances in which an unsuccessful party in arbitration may resist enforcement of an award in the Cayman Islands are limited in number and narrow in scope. The judiciary are alive to the risk that parties may run...more
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination...more
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
On July 26, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld and expounded on the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). The CAFC confirmed that the Patent...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. BACKERTOP LICENSING LLC [OPINION] (23-2367, 23-2368, 24-1016, 24-1017 Prost, Hughes, and Stoll) - Hughes, J. The Court affirmed the District Court’s orders (1)...more
Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...more