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
- Revolution Rope Inventor Tells Justices She Deserves Her Day in Article III Court
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent
- Federal Circuit Upholds Albright’s Ruling on Denial of Transfer for GM
- High Court Asks for SG Views on Apple’s Petition Challenging Federal Circuit Approach to IPR Estoppel
- Albright Gets OK from CAFC on Denial of Transfer for Amazon
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 3: Trump Sues for Copyright Infringement, Google Wins Transfer from TX to CA, and Nike Takes Lululemon to Court for Patent Infringement
- Revolution Rope Inventor Tells Justices She Deserves Her Day in Article III Court
- The USPTO Claims it Wants to Ensure ‘Robust and Reliable’ Patents – But Its Questions Imply Another Assault on Patent Owners
- USPTO Issues Final Rule to Eliminate CLE Certification Program
- This Week in Washington IP: IPWatchdog Event to Review the State of the PTAB; US Inventor Protests in D.C.; and the House Considers Supply Chain Challenges