Intellectual Property Law
New Matter FALL 2022, VOLUME 47, EDITION 3
Content
- 2022 Dc Delegation Trip Report
- 2022 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Intellectual Property Rights and the Russia-ukraine War
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2022-2023
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2022-2023
- Intellectual Property Section New Matter Editorial Board
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor-in-chief
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Protecting Trade Secrets In a Challenging Global Economy
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- Table of Contents
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The Licensing Corner
- Trade Secret Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- "UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS" AND "KNOWN UNKNOWNS": UNTETHERED TRADEMARK MONETARY REMEDIES AFTER TMA ENACTMENT AND ROMAG
- "WE DON'T DO SECTION 101 ANYMORE," THE SUPREMES
- Why Do Companies Care About Cross-border Data Processing, and What Are the Relevant Laws?
- Federal Circuit Report
FEDERAL CIRCUIT REPORT
Philip Eklem
Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
This article discusses the Federal Circuit’s opinion in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom et al. ("Caltech")1 and the case’s impact on proceedings at the U.S.P.T.O. with parallel district-court litigation. Overruling Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.,2 the three-judge panel held that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that result in a final written decision from raising invalidity grounds in a civil proceeding that it "raised or reasonably could have raised" in the IPR, applies not only to the grounds upon which review was instituted, but also to grounds not stated in the petition.