Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
View Official PDFSummary
A short, plain-English overview of Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc..
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which prevents an assignor from challenging the validity of a patent they assigned. The Court upheld the doctrine but clarified that it applies only when an assignor's invalidity claim contradicts representations made during the patent assignment. The case was remanded to determine if Hologic's new patent claims were materially broader than those originally assigned.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc..
The Court held that assignor estoppel is valid but applies only when an assignor's invalidity claim contradicts prior representations made in the patent assignment.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. that support the summary and concepts above.
Assignor estoppel is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles.
The Federal Circuit failed to recognize these boundaries.
The judgment of the Federal Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded.
