Insights

qtq80YaZZ0F1080x675

Interference Estoppel Precludes All Arguments That Could Have Been Raised, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.

This blog has previously discussed the effect of several different types of estoppel.  See, e.g., Estoppel Estopped for Remanded ClaimsReminder: Estoppel May Not Preclude Prior-Art Systems, and PGR Estoppel Applies to Unasserted Art.  Recently, the PTAB again took up the issue of estoppel, this time defining the scope of interference estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a).  The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings SA, DE C.V., IPR2020-01667, Paper No. 10 (PTAB March 25, 2021). There, the PTAB concluded that interference estoppel does not distinguish between priority and patentability issues, but rather precludes a party from subsequently raising all issues that were or could have been raised in an earlier interference proceeding.

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com.

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.