• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
scales of justice
Main image for “You Can’t Challenge This (Unless)”—SCOTUS Upholds but Limits 140-Year-Old Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel
Publications|Alert

“You Can’t Challenge This (Unless)”—SCOTUS Upholds but Limits 140-Year-Old Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel

Intellectual Property Alert

7.12.2021

The doctrine of assignor estoppel bars an inventor who assigns a patent to a third party from later arguing that the assigned patent is invalid. The Supreme Court has now upheld this doctrine but has limited its scope, holding that it applies only to explicit or implicit representations made by the assignor.

In Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., the inventor, Truckai, assigned his patent to another company. Hologic later acquired the company and its patents. Truckai wasn’t quite done with the invention and operated under another company named Minerva. Hologic broadened the patent claims and filed an infringement suit against Minerva. Minerva (Truckai) argued that the patent was invalid, and Hologic claimed assignor estoppel. The district court and appeals court upheld the doctrine of assignor estoppel and stated that the expansion of patent claims was “irrelevant” to the application of assignor estoppel against Minerva. Minerva appealed to the Supreme Court and sought elimination of the doctrine. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the doctrine but limited its application.

In a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that assignor estoppel should be limited to claims of invalidity that “contradict explicit or implicit representations made by the assignor when assigning the patent.” The Court clarified that broad employment contracts assigning future patent rights would not be protected by the doctrine because the assignors themselves would not know the scope of the patent at that point. The doctrine also wouldn’t apply in cases where the law itself changes in such a way that warranties made in the assignment would be defeated. The Court held that assignor estoppel may not apply to “materially broad” changes made to the patent after assignment. The case was sent back to the lower court to decide whether the new claims are materially broad.

Patent owners can rejoice that the majority decided to uphold the doctrine because this doctrine protects their patents from being challenged by the original inventor/assignor in infringement actions. But because this doctrine may not protect material changes, patent owners should exercise caution when deciding to expand the scope of their patent claims. Furthermore, the company receiving the assignment of the patent may want to take more care in drafting assignment documents to cover more possibilities about the scope of the assigned patents as a way to make the inventors’ representations and warranties as to validity more inclusive. Whether more careful drafting of assignment documents can mitigate the risks that assignor estoppel will not apply is, however, a topic for another day.

The case is Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., Case No. 20-440 (U.S., June 29, 2021).

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Erik Paul Belt
Erik Paul Belt

Partner

Media item: Dhruthi Batchu
Dhruthi Batchu

Associate

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel