IP Blog
Estoppel - Patent
Patent Office Introduces Deferred Responses for Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections
The Patent Office recently introduced a new pilot program called the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response pilot program going into effect on February 1. As detailed in a Federal Register notice, the program permits applicants to delay responding to rejections for ineligible subject matter—e.g., that the claims are directed to an abstract idea or law of nature—until later in prosecution....
Prosecution Disclaimer Pitfalls
In Speedtrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (June 3, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed not only the district court’s findings relating to patent infringement, but also the importance of prosecution history when interpreting the claims. More specifically, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that Amazon.com et al. (“Amazon”) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360. The finding of infringement hinged on whether...
Written Decision Needed For IPR Estoppel
In Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N. D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020) the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff Finjan’s motion for summary judgement of validity of a number of claims of various patents asserted against defendant Cisco. Finjan’s arguments were centered around a pair of petitions for inter partes review filed by Cisco, and the...
Prosecution History Crucial for Claim Interpretation of “Remote”
The Federal Circuit has again highlighted the importance of prosecution history for patent claim interpretation. In Baker v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2017-2357 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2018) the Federal Circuit upheld a district court claim interpretation and grant of summary judgement of non-infringement of US Patent 5,486,001. Defendant Microsoft manufactures and sells various computing devices, peripheral devices, and software. For...
CBM Estoppel Limited to Substantially Identical References
A district court recently held the scope of estoppel from covered-business-method (CBM) review encompasses the references used in the CBM as well as almost-identical references. (Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp et al. (D. Minn. 2018).) This dispute started with Solutran suing U.S. Bank for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945. The ’945 patent covers a method of processing checks. U.S....
When to Convert a CIP Patent Application into a Divisional
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the limits of the safe harbor provision of 35 USC §121. In In re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., New York University, No. 2017-1257 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision affirming invalidity of claims of US Patent 6,284,471 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. As...
No Estoppel for Art in Contentions but Not IPR Petition
Earlier this month in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2018), the District of Massachusetts added another case to the majority view of the scope of inter partes review estoppel, deciding that Wangs could assert prior art included in invalidity contentions but omitted from a subsequent IPR petition. Philips had asserted...
IPR Estoppel Remains Elusive for Patent Owners
In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC, No. 15-cv-03295-BLF, (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017), the court took the majority view on the scope of Inter Partes review estoppel, finding no estoppel for grounds of invalidity not included in a petition and for grounds of invalidity denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan had sued Blue Coat, among...
Estoppel, or Lack Thereof, in Inter Partes Reexaminations
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of estoppel for inter partes reexaminations, ruling in a pair of decisions that a district-court decision only estops arguments against individual claims of a patent and that a dismissal without prejudice does not estop the reexamination. In re Affinity Labs of Texas, 2016-1092, -1172, -1173 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2017). Affinity Labs sued...
Broad Estoppel for IPR Petitioner Asserting Prior Art in District Court
Uncertainty over IPR estoppel continues. In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Products LLC, the Western District of Wisconsin recently ruled that grounds of invalidity left out of a petition for inter partes review are estopped and cannot be raised in district court—contrary to the rulings of other district courts. Civ. No. 14-cv-886-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. 18, 2017). Before delving into...