The iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn Inc. case introduces a significant precedent regarding the discretionary denial of petitions based on a petitioner's prior knowledge of a patent. The decision highlights that a petitioner’s inaction after being aware of a patent can outweigh other factors in determining whether to grant review. Notably, iRhythm was aware of the relevant patent since 2013 and continued to develop their product without seeking an earlier review, which raises key questions about expectations and responsibilities within patent law.
In the recent iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn decision, a new basis for discretionary denial emphasizes a petitioner's prior knowledge of a patent and inaction.
This case establishes how the consideration of 'settled expectations' can lead to discretionary denials under Section 314(a) in patent reviews.
Collection
[
|
...
]