IPR Estoppel

In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., 131 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the prosecution history of one patent in a patent family can limit the scope of claims in a different patent in that same patent family, when the claim terms in the two patents are similar but not the same. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,888,728 (“the '728 patent”), 9,789,238 (“the '238 patent”), and 10,238,783 (“the '783 patent”).

Keen sports observers sometimes use trademark applications to try to identify the names and locations of potential expansion teams that may be coming to sports leagues. Recent trademark applications by the WNBA and National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) highlight just how complicated expansion team-related applications can be, however. Let's start with the WNBA. Earlier this year, the WNBA filed applications to register CHARLOTTE STING (Serial Nos.

In a significant decision that resolves ongoing disputes among Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panels, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart has granted Director Review and established clearer standards for when inter partes review (IPR) petitions should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) when prior art was previously considered during patent prosecution. Case Background The decision in Ecto World, LLC and SV3, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.