The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB IPR final written decision that IGT's patent claims were obvious. The court ruled against Zynga's challenge on the Agency's use of interference estoppel, declaring it non-reviewable on appeal. In 2010, an interference was declared due to Zynga's predecessor copying IGT's patent claims. IGT's Patent No. 7,168,089 was contested in a subsequent IPR petition by Zynga, which relied on different prior art. The case raised the issue of whether interference estoppel prevented Zynga from introducing new obviousness arguments in the IPR process.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB IPR decision that found IGT's patent claims obvious and ruled against Zynga's institution challenge regarding interference estoppel.
IGT owned U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089, and Zynga's predecessor copied IGT's published claims, leading to the USPTO declaring an interference.
The central question of whether interference estoppel should bar Zynga from raising new obviousness grounds in the inter partes review revolved around prior art not used during the interference.
The USPTO's rule on interference estoppel states that an interference judgment disposes of all issues that could have been raised during the interference.
Collection
[
|
...
]