Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Will “Assignor Estoppel” Derail Monsanto’s Petition for Inter Partes Review?
| January 25, 2013
Pioneer has filed a Preliminary Response opposing Monsanto’s Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,518,989, arguing that the Petition is merely to avoid the consequences of the doctrine of assignor estoppel.
Two of the three inventors of the ‘989 patent assigned their rights to Pioneer, and then left Pioneer to work at Monsanto. Pioneer argues that Monsanto was able to infringe the ‘989 patent because of the knowledge and assistance of these inventors/workers.
In support of its position, Pioneer cites the CAFC’s decisions in Checkpoint and Intel. “The doctrine of assignor estoppel prevents a party that assigns a patent to another from later challenging the validity of the assigned patent.” Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 412 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The doctrine encompasses challenges by the assignor himself (typically the inventor), as well as challenges by the assignor’s privies. See, Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 839 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Pioneer holds that Monsanto, the inventors’ employer, are the assignors’ privy, and thus, barred from challenging the validity of the ‘989 patent.
If the Board denies Monsanto’s petition, Pioneer might establish that Monsanto is barred from challenging the validity of the ‘989 patent. However, if the Board grants Monsanto’s petition, Pioneer will still have another chance during the inter partes review trial to establish that Monsanto lacks the right to challenge the validity of the ‘989 patent.
Pioneer merely presented its allegation, without any evidentiary support, that Monsanto is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. While there may be a presumption, it is unclear at this time if that is sufficient to deny the petition.
Assignor estoppel is just one of several arguments Pioneer has presented in its opposition to Monsanto’s petition for inter partes review.
