![Close-up of a blue eye with intricate detail, viewed through a magnifying glass, symbolizing scrutiny and examination.](/-/media/images/publications/2024/01/reverse-engineered-search-insufficient-for-iprpgr-estoppel/articleimage/reverse-engineered-search-insufficient-for-iprpg.jpeg?rev=e3cfd917f77b418c8e26f8f127ff2b5e&la=en&h=675&w=1080&hash=27038147675321A224063CF92C9626B6)
Reverse Engineered Search Insufficient For IPR/PGR Estoppel, PTAB Litigation Blog
Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its post-grant review (PGR) petition). No. 18 Civ. 05290 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2023). To support its position, GeigTech presented the court with two keyword search strings showing that each of the prior art references could be identified using Google Patents.