Today, the Federal CircuitSee CAFC will hear oral argument in the BTG v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals case. In addition to standard disputes over whether the patent-in-suit was obvious and whether it was infringed, this case presents a novel issue regarding estoppel for IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. petitioners.
Essentially, the question is whether a petitioner who successfully challenges a claim at the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. is barred from arguing invalidity of that claim in district court. BTG—and the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO., in an amicus brief—argues that if you win at the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO., you thereby have to lose at district court, at least until all rehearings and appeals are exhausted.
Appeals are a process that can take years—years during which you might be barred from putting your product on the market, even though the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. already said that there was no valid patent blocking your path.
Amneal (and an amicus brief from the Association for Affordable Medicine) point out that this result is counter-intuitive—which the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. admits in its own brief—and that normal principles of estoppel prevent making arguments contrary to previous arguments or results, rather than preventing a prevailing party from adopting the prevailing position it had already taken.
It’s unclear how the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. brief in this case, insisting that a petitioner who wins at the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. cannot argue that the patent was invalidated at the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA., meshes with the USPTO’s stated position that getting the same results at the district court and the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. is an important goal. If the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. Director truly believes that the statute requires this counter-intuitive result, perhaps he could push for a legislative fix that would make sure that a win at the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. doesn’t hurt petitioners.
