September 9, 2019
Authored and Edited by Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice; Aaron J. Capron
In Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc., the court (District of Minnesota) held that defendant was not estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting three invalidity combinations involving physical vehicles, even though service manuals describing the physical vehicles had been submitted in an IPR petition or were available at the time of filing the IPR petition.
Polaris sued Arctic Cat for infringing one of its patents. In response, Arctic Cat filed an IPR, challenging certain claims of the patent on four § 103 grounds, one of which relied on a service manual of a physical vehicle. The PTAB later issued a final written decision, denying Arctic Cat’s petition.
In the district court, Arctic Cat also sought to invalidate certain claims based on seven invalidity grounds different from those raised in the IPR petition. Of those seven grounds, three relied on physical vehicles while the other four relied on various patents or printed publications. Polaris sought a summary judgement that Arctic Cat was estopped from asserting all seven grounds.
While the court found that Arctic Cat was estopped from raising the four grounds based on patents or printed publications because they could have reasonably been raised in the IPR, the three grounds relying on physical vehicles were not estopped. The court reasoned that the vehicles themselves could not have been raised in the IPR petition. Moreover, the court recognized that even though some other courts have suggested estoppel may apply to products described in reasonably accessible printed publications, no such court has adopted such a position. Accordingly, the court held that “products embodying patents or printed publications are not subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel.”
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.