View all Webinars

Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

Close     Close Mobile Menu

Categories

Recent

Schwegman Employees Solve a Different Kind of Puzzle at Annual Event
On October 17, Schwegman employees enjoyed one of the hallmarks...
Protecting Intellectual Property Assets Abroad? Choose the Right Team
Sometimes a US patent is only the start. Schwegman’s lead...
Key Drivers and Drags on Future Innovation in Legal Services
Twenty years ago, the offshoring of back-office legal work was...
Tim Bianchi to Speak on Testing Patents in the PTAB at 2019 Midwest IP Institute
An opportunity to learn more about PTAB proceedings is coming...
How ClaimScape Brings Exceptional Value to Clients
Foundation IP, or FIP, is the earliest web-based Intellectual Property...
Attend VLN’s event to help people in poverty obtain legal services
Skilled legal counsel can make an enormous difference in a...

Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

In my last post, I discussed estoppel in the context in inter partes review, in which defendant filed for IPR after losing in the courts. The Board found the claims-in-suit to be obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the courts and the PTAB could reach different conclusions about patentability.

In Fairchild (Appeal no. 17-1002 (Fed. Cir., April 21, 2017)), the Federal Circuit found the asserted claims to be valid. Power Integrations had earlier filed for inter partes reexamination, using the same references it used in the District Court suit. The Federal Circuit ordered the PTAB to vacate and dismiss the reexamination of the claims found to be valid. Note that this decision rests on the provisions of 35 USC s. 317, which prevents a defendant that lost on invalidity in the courts from bringing the same challenge via inter partes reexamination. Section 317 (pre-AIA) is worded differently than Section 315(e)(2), relating to inter partes review estoppel. Post-AIA, defendant can lose at the district court but faces broad estoppel if it pursues IPR –although, (as in Novartis v. Noven) it can still prevail even if the records are identical (!) My head hurts!

 

This post is from the biotechnology patent law blog www.patents4Life.com.

  Back to All News