In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear Inc.1 The decision serves as a warning to patent and other intellectual property owners and their counsel that once one contacts a putative infringer, there must be follow-through in some fashion or the IP owner risks losing all rights with respect to that infringer. The Aspex Eyewear decision affirmed (over the dissent of one circuit judge) the dismissal on summary judgment of a patent infringement case by then-District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York based on the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel.
The estoppel was based on the patent owner corresponding with the defendant and claiming infringement, and then delaying suit for over three years. Although the original demand letter was not as assertive as is often sent in such cases, and although the prejudice was relatively light, there was enough to sustain an estoppel defense, which completely barred the patent claims.
Equitable Estoppel
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
