ARTICLE
10 August 2017

PTAB Designates Portion Of Assignor Estoppel Opinion As Precedential

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
Now that the PTAB has designated as precedential Section II.A. of this opinion, the panel's holding that assignor estoppel does not bar a petitioner from filing an IPR is binding on all PTAB panels.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In October 2016, we posted about a Federal Circuit decision addressing whether assignor estoppel bars a party from filing an inter partes review petition. In Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Husky's appeal of the PTAB's rejection of Husky's assignor estoppel argument. The court found that because PTAB IPR denials are not appealable, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and Husky's appeal did not fall within one of the exceptions that the Supreme Court articulated in Cuozzo, the appeal was improper.

In August 2017, the PTAB designated its underlying opinion in the Husky matter precedential under the PTAB's Standard Operating Procedure 2. Interestingly, the PTAB's announcement appears to limit the precedential status of the decision to Section II.A. of the opinion, which relates to assignor estoppel. The remainder of the decision addresses the merits of the petitioner's challenges to the patent-at-issue.

The PTAB's discussion of assignor estoppel in Section II.A. is quite brief. After discussing the legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (which states that "a person who is not the owner of a patent" may file an IPR), the panel provided a conclusory rejection of Husky's assignor estoppel argument:

Because we are not persuaded that assignor estoppel, an equitable doctrine, provides an exception to the statutory mandate that any person who is not the owner of a patent may file a petition for an inter partes review, we decline to deny this Petition based on the doctrine of assignor estoppel.

Athena Automation Ltd v. Husky Injection Molding System Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper 18 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2013), p. 13.

Now that the PTAB has designated as precedential Section II.A. of this opinion, the panel's holding that assignor estoppel does not bar a petitioner from filing an IPR is binding on all PTAB panels.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More