Tada Images / Shutterstock.com
A decision by the Supreme Court over the assignor estoppel doctrine could have far-reaching implications for patent law, argue Jeffrey D Morton, Zachary Schroeder and Ryan D Ricks of Snell & Wilmer.
On January 8, 2021, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Minerva Surgical v Hologic to consider whether an inventor or those in privity with the inventor may assert patent invalidity as a defence against a patent infringement suit for the inventor’s patent.
The doctrine at issue is known as “assignor estoppel” and provides protection to assignees in patent transactions.
This article will discuss: (i) the Minerva litigation; (ii) the importance of the court’s decision to hear the case; (iii) a review of case law and doctrine that may influence the court’s decision; and (iv) how the court’s decision could impact patent law and related transactions.
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Minerva Surgical, Hologic, US Supreme Court, inventions, patent infringement, assignor estoppel, Federal Circuit, USPTO