直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

PTO Designates Precedential its Athena Automation Decision on Assignor Estoppel in IPR

August 15, 2017

Authored and Edited by Jason E. Stach; James D. Stein

The PTAB designated as precedential its Institution Decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Moldings Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper No. 18 (Oct. 25, 2013). According to the Patent Office’s message announcing this new precedential designation, “[t]his decision determines that the doctrine of assignor estoppel is not an exception to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a), which allows ‘a person who is not the owner of a patent’ to file a petition for inter partes review.”

Athena joins just eight other decisions or portions of decisions that the PTAB has designated as precedential in PTAB trials. The complete list can be found on the Patent Office’s website, although the list also includes other types of PTAB decisions, such as appeals from ex parte prosecution matters.

Stay tuned to the AIA Blog, where we will host a collection of the PTAB’s precedential post-grant review decisions, along with brief summaries of the designated portions of those decisions.

Tags

assignor estoppel, Precedential

Related Practices

Appeals to the PTAB

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Contacts

Jason E. Stach
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6428
Email

Copyright © 2017 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.

Related Insights

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 TIPA International Symposium

October 30, 2026

Taipei City

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

Articles

Who Is a “Consumer?” The Supreme Court Takes Up the Video Privacy Protection Act

October 12, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP