Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC that the doctrine of assignor estoppel”—which bars the assignor of a patent from later attacking the patent’s validity—“is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles…[but] applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.” Most expected the Court to rule along those lines following oral argument earlier this year, but the split decision, which included two separate dissents, could signal this Court’s future interest in patent cases. Commenters below also said that the ruling will result in the doctrine of assignor estoppel being applied much less frequently and in much narrower circumstances, and that it will almost certainly never be applied in employee agreement situations going forward. Here is what some stakeholders had to say.
Litigation
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach
- In re Killian: Harvey the Rabbit Comes to the Federal Circuit
- California Court Holds Pinterest’s Display of User-Uploaded Works Near Ads are Protected by DMCA Safe Harbor
- Hirono and Tillis Give Vidal One Month to Answer Questions on Abuse of PTAB Process
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 20: CAFC Remands No Case or Controversy Determination to Eastern Texas, Ninth Circuit Rules 2018 Farm Act Legalized Delta-8 THC Trademarks, and EU Commission Directs Member States to Codify Copyright Rules
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- Policy Shift Against SEP Rights Poses Risks for U.S. Innovation and Undermines Mandate of the ITC
- Mossoff-Barnett Comment on EU Commission’s Call for SEP Evidence Spotlights Misconceptions About FRAND Obligations
- LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach