We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you agree to our use of cookies. To close this message click close.

US: District Court Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel by Specifying When Prior Art “Reasonably Could Have Been Raised” in an IPR

24 March 2016

LimeGreen IP News

One key trade-off for petitioners challenging the validity of a patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is being estopped from making a parallel challenge in district court. If the PTO issues a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR), the petitioner is estopped from later urging in court that a reviewed patent “claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” in its IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). However, the estoppel statutory provision does not state precisely when prior art that was not used in an IPR will be barred from use in court as part of invalidity grounds that “reasonably could have [been] raised” in the IPR.

Click here to read more.


Loading data