Opening Word document…

IPR decreases litigation.

Maynard ’17 [Clint; JD from University of Minnesota Law School; Minnesota Law Review; 10/29/2017; “Patent Apocalypse,” https://minnesotalawreview.org/2017/10/29/patent-apocalypse/]//LASA-AB

Of course, patent holders would prefer to test the validity of their patent claims under the due process requirements of federal courts.[21] But some patent holders in parallel litigation have also relied on the broad IPR estoppel provisions of the AIA.[22] Assuming these provisions would also be severed from the AIA, retroactivity could now make previously barred defenses available in federal court. Moreover, although vacated, the PTAB’s invalidity determination based on the prior art may leave patent holders questioning the value of their previously dead patent. Would it still be subject to invalidity through reexamination by the USPTO—the same agency that already previously invalidated the patent?[23] Is the patent worth trying to enforce? Even if patent holders find themselves with a patent seemingly back from the dead, it may not be the same as it once was. While many patent holders may disagree with a prospective application of an unconstitutional ruling in Oil States, it still may be the most equitable result.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.