The article discusses the recent Federal Circuit decisions in Ingenico and Ironburg, which have significantly altered the landscape of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2). This provision prevents petitioners from asserting invalidity in district court on grounds they could have raised during an inter partes review. However, the court held that system art is exempt from IPR estoppel and that petitioners could use previously raised patents and publications to support new grounds that were not available during the IPR. These rulings have caused concerns about the efficacy of IPR estoppel, highlighting the need for a reassessment of these legal interpretations.
The Federal Circuit's decisions in Ingenico and Ironburg effectively eliminate statutory IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2), undermining its intended purpose to streamline litigation.
Despite the clear legislative intention for IPR estoppel to limit defenses in district court litigation, the Federal Circuit's latest interpretations expand what can be argued.
Collection
[
|
...
]