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...
by Lisamarie LoGiudice | Nov 28, 2016 | Estoppel, Pharmaceutical
By Lisamarie LoGiudice and Patrick Elsevier In Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, 3-13-cv-00571, the District of New Jersey held that neither statutory nor judicial estoppel bars Purdue from continuing to assert invalidity defenses that were not instituted...
by Geoffrey Gavin | Nov 17, 2016 | Estoppel, Stay
By Geoffrey Gavin In Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Kemper Corporation (accessible here), No. 6:16-cv-00081, Dkt No. 57 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2016) (Slip Op.), Judge Gilstrap made clear that a defendant in East Texas seeking a stay based on a third party petitioner’s...
