About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Issues Preliminary Examination Instructions Regarding Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International | Main | USPTO Extends Deadline for Providing Feedback on Myriad-Mayo Guidance »

June 26, 2014


If Judge Sabraw is ever faced with a motion to apply an estoppel on grounds not instituted, he will probably reconsider and change his answer to this question. The statute does not create estoppel for grounds not instituted (whether requested in the petition or not), and the proper framework for determining scope of estoppel under the "reasonably could have been raised" standard should be the common law principles of issue preclusion (for example as in the Restatement of Judgments 2nd.) An un-appealable PTAB determination to not institue a review would never pass muster for issue preclusion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31