The article discusses the Federal Circuit's decision in Ingenico v. IOENGINE, which could significantly change IPR estoppel principles, favoring infringers over patent holders. Author Dennis Crouch argues that the court's ruling reflects a formalist approach focused primarily on textual interpretation, without acknowledging the broader implications of its decision or the intent behind the law. This lack of awareness may lead to outcomes that directly oppose established legislative goals, making a case for reconsideration of the ruling through panel or en banc rehearing as the precedent takes hold.
"The Federal Circuit's ruling threatens to undermine Congressional intent and, as a consequence, dramatically shift the AIA balance in favor of IPR challengers and against patent owners."
"This case presents compelling grounds for sua sponte panel or en banc rehearing before the precedent takes root."
"This interpretive style, while internally consistent, can lead to impractical outcomes that may not align with underlying legislative goals or intent."
"Without briefing on an expansive interpretation of 'ground' in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the panel produced an opinion that extends dramatically beyond both Judge Bryson's carefully calibrated district court ruling and the limited relief Ingenico requested on appeal."
Collection
[
|
...
]