St. Dezier v. Michaud

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that reliance on printed sheets not allowed but could introduce specimens of physical device
• holding that reliance on printed sheets not allowed but could introduce specimens of physical device
• an IPR “can only be instituted on narrow grounds—anticipation and obviousness on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications”
• “Snap-On cannot skirt [IPR estoppel] by purporting to rely on a device without actually relying on the device itself.”
• Section 315(e)(2) prohibits an unsuccessful IPR petitioner from asserting in the district court \that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.\
• [A] petitioner cannot be left with the option to institute a few grounds for IPR while holding some others in reserve for a second bite at the invalidity apple once in the district court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).