Legal Analysis of the Principle of Prohibition of Reassertion of Claims and Grounds (Estoppel) in the Inter Partes Review Proceeding of Patent Law in the United States: Challenges, Implications, and Lessons for the Iranian Legal System

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jolt.2025.388195.1007360

Abstract

Undoubtedly, establishing mechanisms to balance the rights of patent holders and patent challengers is one of the primary goals of patent law. The inter partes review (IPR) process and its estoppel provisions in U.S. law aim to achieve this balance. However, there is no equivalent mechanism in Iranian law. Given the significant role of such a balance in fostering economic development and innovation, this article seeks to analyze these mechanisms in the U.S. legal system and provide a suitable model for Iran. The primary question is: How is estoppel applied in the inter partes review process in U.S. patent law? What are its challenges, and what lessons can it offer for reforming Iranian patent law? Based on the findings of this descriptive-analytical study, despite the U.S. legislature's efforts to enact a clear law rooted in past experiences, various ambiguities have emerged in practice, which the U.S. judiciary has sought to resolve through proper interpretation. It appears that an optimal interpretation is one that strikes a balance between the rights of patent holders and patent challengers. The Iranian legislature can enact effective laws by addressing the ambiguities of U.S. law and leveraging its judicial experiences.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

حبیبا، سعید و بهادری جهرمی، زهرا (1396). مطالعة تطبیقی شیوة تدوین قوانین و تأثیر آن بر فرایند ثبت اختراع (مطالعة موردی یک اختراع ثبت‌شده در ایران و امریکا). مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 8(2)، 565 ـ 581.
صادقی، محمود و امینی، مهدی (1391). موجبات و آثار ابطال گواهینامة حق اختراع. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 3(1)، 55 ـ 72. 10. 2059/jcl.2012.32105
عبداللهی، محمدجواد و شریفی رنانی، مریم (1399). شرط عدم چالش اعتبار گواهی حق اختراع در قرارداد لیسانس. حقوق خصوصی، 17(1)، 205 ـ 229. 10.22059/jolt.2020.296771.1006818
غمامی، مجید (1401). اعتبار امر قضاوت‌شده در فرجام. نقد و تحلیل آرای قضایی، 1(2)، 389 ـ 402.  10. 2034/analysis.2023.701516
Abdollahi, M.J. & Sharifi Renani, M. (2020). No-Challenge Validity Clause in Patents License Agreements. Private Law, 17(1), DOI: 10.22059/jolt.2020.296771.1006818. (in Persian)
Anloot, T. (2023). Undefined ground: Form or Substance in PTO Estoppel. The University of Chicago Review, 90(8), 20174-2210.
Contreras, J. L. (2015). A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges. Utah Law Review, 2015(2).
Court for the District of Delaware. (n.d). https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/17-1405_1.pdf.
Esch, J. & Miller, P. (2019). Petitioner Estoppel from Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings after SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 18(2), 9-22.
Ghamami, M. (2022). The Validity of Res Judicata in the Appellate Stage. Analysis of Judicial Decisions Journal, 1(2), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.22034/analysis.2023.701516.
Habiba, S. & Bahadori Jehrami, Z. (2017). Comparative Study of the Methodology of Lawmaking and Its Impact on the Patent Registration Process: A Case Study of a Patent Registered in Iran and the U.S. Journal of Comparative Legal Studies, 8(2), 565-581.
Harrison, J. C. (2019). A Recent Patent Class on the Scope of IPR Estoppel at the PTAB. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 14(1), 34-48.
Kehoe, W. (2024). Burdening the Skilled Searcher: The Federal Circuit Falls Short of Providing Ironclad Fixes to § 315(e) Estoppel Issues in Iron burg v. Valve. Villanova Law Review, 69(3), 575-614.
Laser, C. H. J. (2019). The Scope of IPR Estoppel: A Statutory, Historical, and Normative Analysis. Florida Law Review, 70(6), 1127-1182.
----------------. (2022). Brief of Patent Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=fac_briefs.
Modderman, M. (2020). Inter Partes Review Estoppel: Restoring The Principles Of Res Judicata. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3531340 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3531340.
Motl, A. (2015). Inter Partes Review: Ensuring Effective Patent Litigation Through Estoppel. Minnesota Law Review, 99(1975).
PTAB Bar Association (2024). Bench and Bar Discussion of IPR Strategies and Practical Tips. https://www.ptabbar.org/docs/PTAB_Webinar_PowerPoint-Practical_Tips_for_IPR.pdf.
Rueckheim, M. & Jung, R. (2024). The Evolving Scope of IPR Estoppel as Applied to System and Product Prior Art. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 23(2), 138-144.
Sadeghi, M. & Amini, M. (2012). Causes and Effects of Annulment of Patent Certificates. Journal of Comparative Legal Studies, 3(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcl.2012.32105
Seymore, S. (2023). Patent Forfeiture. Duke Law Journal, 72(1019), 1019-1078.
Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-440/170364/20210301121225896_20-440%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief.pdf.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (n.d). https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1098.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683113.pdf.
United States Patent and Trademarks Office. (n.d). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/120321-mcaa_conf.pdf.
Zirpoli, Ch. T. & Hickey, K. J. (2024). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48016.
 
Private Law
Volume 21, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter
October 2024
Pages 355-369

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics