ARTICLE
2 June 2025

Ingenico: Federal Circuit Clarifies Only "Grounds," Not The Prior Art They Rely On, Are Estopped After An IPR

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
With the recent discretionary denial changes at the PTAB, one point of emphasis has been petitioner's stipulations not to pursue certain grounds or references in the parallel district court litigation...
United States Intellectual Property

With the recent discretionary denial changes at the PTAB, one point of emphasis has been petitioner's stipulations not to pursue certain grounds or references in the parallel district court litigation (most commonly a Sotera or Sand stipulation). The Acting Director has placed an emphasis on looking at how much reduction in overlap there will be in practice, particularly where there is system art at issue in the district court. See, e.g., Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Stellar, LLC, IPR2024-01205, IPR2024-01206, IPR2024-01207 & IPR2024-01208, Paper 19 (PTAB March 28, 2025). The Federal Circuit has now weighted in on the district court side, to clarify what grounds and art are–and are not–subject to estoppel without a stipulation.

Read more here.

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.

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