Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
827 bytes added ,  19:38, January 27, 2021
cert granted
Line 2: Line 2:     
The [[America Invents Act]] abrogated this doctrine for ''inter partes'' proceedings,<ref>https://www.patentspostgrant.com/equitable-defenses-ptab/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original</ref> however, which further undermines the validity of patents like much of what the AIA has done.
 
The [[America Invents Act]] abrogated this doctrine for ''inter partes'' proceedings,<ref>https://www.patentspostgrant.com/equitable-defenses-ptab/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original</ref> however, which further undermines the validity of patents like much of what the AIA has done.
 +
 +
On January 8, 2021, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] granted cert. in No. 20-440 to consider this question:
 +
 +
{{cquote|QUESTION PRESENTED:
 +
 +
In the Patent Act, Congress established that invalidity is a “defense[] in any action
 +
involving the validity or infringement of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) (emphasis added).
 +
 +
There is no textual exception to this command. The Federal Circuit nonetheless applies
 +
a judge-made “equitable” exception to the statute’s unqualified language known as
 +
“assignor estoppel.” Assignor estoppel prevents an inventor who has assigned a patent
 +
from later contesting the patent’s validity.
 +
 +
The question is whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned
 +
the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity
 +
heard on the merits.}}
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
[[category:Patent Law]]
 
[[category:Patent Law]]
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,215

edits

Navigation menu