Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 APRIL 2021

Patentability Challenges Not Raised In Prior Interference Foreclosed In Subsequent IPR

Akin
Akin
Contributor
Akin

Akin

Akin is a global law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers and advisors who pride themselves on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Akin

A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently considered whether a petitioner was estopped from bringing an inter partes review (IPR)

United StatesIntellectual Property

A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently considered whether a petitioner was estopped from bringing an inter partes review (IPR) based on a judgment in a previous interference proceeding.

Patent owner Mexichem Amanco Holdings owns U.S. Patent No. 8,633,340, which covers processes for preparing chlorinated and fluorinated hydrocarbons. In September 2020, The Chemours Company (petitioner) filed a petition for IPR seeking review of certain claims of the '340 patent.

This was not the first time that petitioner had challenged the '340 patent at the board. In 2018, the '340 patent was involved in an interference with one of petitioner's reissue applications. Pursuant to the board's instruction, each party in the interference submitted a list of motions they intended to file. Notably, while patent owner sought permission to file motions challenging both priority and patentability of petitioner's reissue claims, petitioner only included a single motion for

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from