by Matthew Johnson | Dec 22, 2020 | Estoppel
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – The estoppel statute precludes a defendant who has challenged a claim in an IPR reaching final written decision from later challenging that claim on any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR...
by David Maiorana | Sep 3, 2020 | Estoppel, PGR
By Dave Maiorana – Due to the relatively low number of post-grant reviews (“PGR”) filed to date, not many district courts have spoken on the scope of PGR estoppel. In GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Texas), Magistrate Judge Payne in the...
by Carl Kukkonen | Jan 29, 2020 | Estoppel
By Phillip Shelton and Carl Kukkonen – In Think Prod., Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., No. 18-CV-07506, 2019 WL 6609427, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019), the District Court addressed whether the plaintiff patent ower was collaterally estopped from arguing validity in...
by Matthew Johnson | Nov 13, 2019 | Estoppel, PGR
By Amanda Leckman and Matt Johnson On February 28, 2019, GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) filed a Complaint against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”), directed to a method for controlling a computer to improve the...
by Cary Miller | May 2, 2019 | Estoppel, Pharmaceutical
Cary Miller, Ph.D., and Jihong Lou, Ph.D. In a recent decision, a district court in the District of Delaware applied estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to a defendant in Hatch-Waxman litigation, two and half years after the court conducted a bench trial on...
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 12, 2019 | Estoppel
By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted against...
