On Wednesday, April 21, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., which concerns the doctrine of assignor estoppel. Generally speaking, assignor estoppel prohibits the assignor of a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity in court. Minerva argues that assignor estoppel is an ill-conceived relic of a bygone era that the Court should discard or at least substantially limit. Hologic argues that the doctrine is a bedrock part of the common law—a background against which Congress has been legislating for over a century—that the Court should preserve in full.
Recent Posts
- USPTO Scraps Proposal to Allow Non-Registered Practitioners as Lead Counsel in Final Rule on Expanding PTAB Practice Opportunities
- SCOTUS Denies Challenges to Section 101 Test, Trademark Domicile Rules and Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting Analysis
- After Loper Bright, the USPTO Should Reopen the Comment Period for FY 2025-2029 Patent Fees
- Dissecting the USPTO’s Update to Eligibility Guidance for AI Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 4: Meta Hit with Class Action Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Industry Leaders Ask for Clarification on Third-Party Litigation; EUIPO Applauds German Court Ruling on Misleading Invoices