Outside Counsel

Decisions Suggest That Estoppel Arising From IPR Is Narrower Than Anticipated

, New York Law Journal


Scott W. Doyle, Jonathan R. DeFosse and Arvind Iyengar write that at the time the America Invents Act was enacted, it was widely believed to represent a broad prohibition on later raising prior art invalidity arguments based on any printed publications or patents that could have been included in an inter partes review petition. Over the last year however, courts have suggested that the scope of the IPR estoppel provision is more limited than many originally anticipated.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202780871597

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.