IPR Estoppel Provisions May Not Be That Scary After All

By Yue (Joy) Wang IPR petitioners wary of the statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) may have reason to be cautiously optimistic.   Judge Sue Robinson of the Federal District Court of Delaware recently held that Toshiba is not estopped from presenting invalidity grounds at trial that it did not raise in an earlier IPR. … Continue reading IPR Estoppel Provisions May Not Be That Scary After All

A Decision Not to Institute a Trial at the PTAB Does Not Carry Much Weight in Federal Court

By Tom Engellenner Two recent cases show that simply avoiding a post-grant review proceeding at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) not only does not preclude a defendant in underlying patent infringement litigation in a federal district court from raising the same invalidity arguments again, it also may not even influence … Continue reading A Decision Not to Institute a Trial at the PTAB Does Not Carry Much Weight in Federal Court

Stanford Patent Found Invalid in IPR proceedings but Licensee’s IP Survives

By Tom Engellenner In a decision this month (IPR2013-00308), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has ruled against Stanford University’s patented method for detecting Down’s syndrome and other chromosomal defects, finding all of the challenged claims 1-13 invalid. The Stanford patent, U.S. Patent Number 8,296,076, is licensed to Verinata Health Inc., and is the … Continue reading Stanford Patent Found Invalid in IPR proceedings but Licensee’s IP Survives