A Central District of California judge recently granted summary
judgment of no obviousness based on inter partes review
(IPR) estoppel because the only prior art references used to
challenge patent validity could have been asserted during IPR
proceedings.
On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for patent
infringement against Defendant. In response, Defendant filed IPR
petitions against the patents-in-suit. The district court stayed
the litigation pending resolution of the IPRs. After the Board
issued its final written decisions in the IPRs—which
invalidated only some of the patents—the court partially
lifted the stay of the action as to the patents that survived the
IPR. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant filed
cross-motions for summary judgement. Among the motions was
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment of no
obviousness based on IPR estoppel under § 35 USC
315(e)(2).
