The doctrine of patent assignor estoppel is not found in the U.S. statute, but that omission has led to only limited litigation over the doctrine despite the notoriety of the case of Hologic v. Minerva. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit reinforced the understanding that an assigned patent is still in force when the disputed claim is not seen has having been materially broadened by the time a patent has been granted in its final form, thus closing one of the principal contractual questions surrounding patents that are handed off from one device maker to another.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. delivered its decision in the case of Minerva v. Hologic, a case that tested the boundaries of the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars a patent's seller (assignor) from attacking the patent's validity in subsequent patent infringement litigation.
The Supreme Court heard the case of Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., which takes up the question of assignor estoppel for patents, but the discussions that peppered the April 21 hearing lent little clarity as to how the nine justices will decide the case.
The latest global regulatory news, changes and updates affecting medical devices and technologies, including: FDA grants de novo for Biofire multianalyte assay; No injuries or deaths associated with Acist Kodama recall; Supreme Court to hear assignor estoppel case; Cardiac rehab bill resurfaces in U.S. House.
Assignor estoppel doesn’t enjoy the glamour of subject matter eligibility in the U.S. patent system, but a case heard recently at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has resurrected this relatively arcane bit of patent doctrine. The outcome of the case of Hologic v. Minerva addressed the less-than-princely sum of roughly $5 million, but Judge Kara Stoll of the Federal Circuit said this issue calls for a deeper examination by a 12-judge panel.