Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 FEBRUARY 2024

Reverse Engineered Search Insufficient For IPR/PGR Estoppel

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its post-grant review (PGR) petition). No. 18 Civ. 05290 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2023). To support its position, GeigTech presented the court with two keyword search strings showing that each of the prior art references could be identified using Google Patents.

As we previously discussed (here), IPR/PGR estoppel applies to grounds "a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover, as these are grounds that the petitioner 'reasonably could have raised' in its petition." Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Establishing estoppel under this standard requires the patent owner to put forth (1) evidence of a "search string and search source that would identify

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