Estoppel

Subscribe to Estoppel via RSS
Amendment Based Estoppel at PTAB?

Remember the Doctrine of Equivalents (DOE)?

DOE was that folksy doctrine that allowed some wiggle room in proving patent infringement where a claim term was not literally met.  That is, DOE allows a patent owner to reach an equivalent claim element functioning in the same way, to achieve the same result that is utilized to side-step the literal claim language.  DOE is the type of legal argument that litigators live for.  Unfortunately, the doctrine was all but laid to rest decades ago in the Supreme Court’s Festo decision as most prosecution changes will foreclose DOE.  Still, there is an occasional throwback case that attempts to litigate DOE.

Most recently, Columbia University faced a summary judgment motion arguing that its DOE-based assertion was precluded by amendment based estoppel — as a result of PTAB claim cancellation alone.
Continue Reading Cancelling Claims at the PTAB & The Doctrine of Equivalents

October Webinar to Debrief on Leahy Bill

Senator Patrick Leahy (D) VT and Senator John Cornyn (R) TX have jointly drafted a new bill entitled the “Restoring the America Invents Act.” The Bill proposes to roll-back recent directives and policies of former USPTO Director Iancu, most notably discretionary denials of AIA trial proceedings in view…

Same Questions, Different Rubric?

Senator Patrick Leahy has now proposed draft legislation to add Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (OTDP) to IPR jurisdiction. The argument for adding this potential ground is that it is an important control to combat improperly extended drug monopolies (the justification underlying much of the legislative proposal).  Whether this provision makes it to law is far from clear given the likely push back from Bio/Pharma.

In the meantime, a Pharma dispute recently argued that OTDP is basically the same PTAB obviousness analysis under a different rubric.  An awkward argument given the coming storm.
Continue Reading PTAB Estoppel & Double Patenting?

1668714367-1978-4092-lxb_photoKZNTEn2r6twlxb_photo-
Photo Boards, Unsplash
Bill Released – Iancu Era Rebuked

Well, the wait was not that long after all.  Senator Leahy -VT (D) (with co-sponsor Senator Cornyn – Tx (R)) has today released the draft bill entitled “Restoring the America Invents Act.”  The bill includes most of what I expected, with a handful of additional tweaks.

Below is a brief overview of all of the proposed changes.
Continue Reading Restoring the America Invents Act – What You Need to Know

What is “Materially Identical?”

The doctrine of issue preclusion can prevent an issue previously litigated at the PTAB from being re-litigated in a later proceeding, such as in the district court. In order for issue preclusion to apply, a “materially identical” issue must have been “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment,” where the determination was “essential to the judgment.” See Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, once appeals have been exhausted, the determinations in a FWD from the PTAB may have preclusive effect in future actions, even on related patents so long as they raise “materially identical” issues.

Which begs the question: What is the scope of materially identical?
Continue Reading PTAB Decisions & Issue Preclusion

FWD Statutory Estoppel vs. Collateral Estoppel

In designing the America Invents Act (AIA), statutory estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) was set to by legislators to attach at the time of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision (FWD).  This is despite the fact that further appeals are routine.  This statutory design was responsive to the previous criticism of inter partes reexamination estoppel, which attached only after all appeals were exhausted.

Yet, this statutory design often puts district courts in the unenviable position of treating an otherwise non-final decision, as final……at least with respect to petitioner estoppel.  As to claims that may be cancelled in the same FWD, courts are free to await further appeals.

This unbalanced scenario can be exploited by Patent Owners.
Continue Reading Patent Owner Uses FWD Cancelling Claims as a Sword & Shield

Are Continuation Patents Still Viable After a Parent is Cancelled?

Patent families are formed of multiple continuation/divisional filings stemming from the same disclosure. Typically, continuation patents present marginally different claim sets.  An age old prosecution strategy is to keep a continuation pending to adapt claim sets in an iterative fashion to competitor designs. But what is the impact of the PTAB cancellation of a parent patent’s claims on such pending continuations?
Continue Reading Patent Family Viability After a PTAB Loss?

Joinder Estoppel Revisited

A few weeks back, the federal Circuit handed down a decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc, capping off a complicated procedural history.  In its decision, the Court sorted out the estoppel impact of IPRs finishing a few months earlier than others, and what that meant for parties common to these IPRs.

Left unanalyzed, however, was whether or not the PTAB’s initial finding of estoppel was appropriate in the first instance given the peculiar manner by which parties are joined to PTAB proceedings via copy-cat petitions.
Continue Reading Evolution of PTAB Joinder Estoppel

Inconsistency Across Related Cases is Precluded

When challenging related patents at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), it is not uncommon to present similar grounds of unpatentability across related filings— for example, where the claim sets are substantially similar.  In such scenarios, it is expected that the PTAB will arrive at consistent determinations across the filings. Of course, there is no guarantee, that the same judge will decide all of the cases.  In such instances, there is a possibility of inconsistent results, especially where the challenges are advanced at different times.

For example, party A might challenge a parent patent in an IPR, and lose on a question of obvious under 103.  When a continuation patent issues a bit later, Party A may attempt to challenge the continuation on the same grounds (perhaps bolstered by a better presentation or additional evidence).  In such a scenario, is the Board free to change its mind?  Or is the Board collaterally estopped given the earlier determination, and the same party pursuing the same argument?Continue Reading Collateral Estoppel in AIA Trial Proceedings

New PTAB Roadblocks & Strategies

Earlier this week I laid out my Top 5 PTAB cases of 2020 for PTAB Practitioners, focusing on those cases that changed day-to-day practices before the agency. Like the practitioner list, my Top 5 PTAB developments of 2020 for District Court Litigators will focus on those practical PTAB developments that will impact parallel litigation practices outside of the agency.

In 2020, there were a number developments of interest to litigators, from litigation forums where a PTAB challenge is foreclosed or highly unlikely, to stipulations for avoiding PTAB discretionary denials, and new risks of collateral estoppel across a litigated portfolio.
Continue Reading Top 5 PTAB Developments of 2020 for District Court Litigators