In Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC, the District of Delaware ruled on summary judgment that ASC is estopped from asserting two obviousness grounds against a patent claim because it raised the same grounds in inter partes reexamination proceedings. At issue was whether pre-America Invents Act (AIA) reexamination estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) applies even if the patent owner raises a different claim construction in district court than the USPTO applied during reexamination. The District Court answered “yes,” reasoning that a “party’s proposed construction of a term does not change . . . whether a party previously asserted that a claim … was obvious in an inter partes reexamination.”
D. Del.: Plaintiff’s Seeking Broader Construction in District Court Rather Than in Reexamination Does Not Preclude Reexamination Estoppel
February 6, 2023
Reading Time : 1 min
Victaulic owns U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 (“the ʼ796 Patent”), which relates to a “deformable mechanical pipe coupling.” Independent claims 1, 21, 41 and 44 of the ʼ796 Patent each includes a “being deformable” limitation, which recites “said segments being deformable upon adjustable tightening of said connection members so as to substantially conform the curvature of said arcuate surfaces to the outer surfaces of said pipe elements within said circumferential grooves.”
In 2012, ASC requested inter partes reexamination of certain claims of the ʼ796 Patent, including claims 1, 21, 41 and 44. ASC’s request asserted obviousness grounds against those claims based on “Reynolds” and “Reynolds in view of Webb.” The USPTO instituted reexamination on both of those grounds but determined that the claims were “valid and patentable” in a final decision.
Notably, during reexamination, the USPTO agreed to add language to the “being deformable” limitation in claims 21, 41 and 44—but not in claim 1. However, the USPTO “mistakenly omitted” the added language from its decision, and the claims were not formally amended to add that language.
In 2020, Victaulic asserted claim 1 of the ʼ796 Patent against ASC in the District of Delaware, among other claims. In its invalidity contentions for claim 1, ASC again asserted “Reynolds” and “Reynolds in view of Webb.”
In a motion for summary judgment, Victaulic argued that ASC was estopped from asserting “Reynolds” or “Reynolds in view of Webb” against claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) because ASC raised those grounds in the reexamination proceedings. Section 315(c) states that a “third-party requester” like ASC is “estopped from asserting at a later time, in any civil action . . . the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the [] requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings.”
In response, ASC argued that its Reynolds and Webb-based obviousness grounds were not “raised” and “could not have been raised” in the reexamination proceedings because the two proceedings involve different claim interpretations of the “being deformable” limitation in claim 1. Specifically, ASC argued that, during reexamination, the USPTO applied a narrow interpretation of “being deformable” in claim 1 that necessarily included the additional language that was supposed to be added to claims 21, 41 and 41. Thus, according to ASC, estoppel should not apply because “Victaulic now asserts an interpretation of the [‘being deformable’] claim limitation . . . in claim 1 that is broader than the Board’s interpretation of the claim,” which presents new “issues” when asserting Reynolds and Webb in district court.
The District Court rejected ASC’s argument, ruled that estoppel applied, and granted summary judgment in favor of Victaulic. In coming to its conclusion, the District Court determined that “raised or could have raised” in § 315(c) refers to whether the same claims are at issue, not the same interpretations, citing In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, 856 F.3d 883, 891-92 (Fed. Cir. 2017). When ASC requested reexamination, claim 1 “had the same language as it has now,” which “has only ‘one correct construction.’” Accordingly, even if Victaulic is applying a different construction than the USPTO, that “does not change either how the Court must construe that term or whether a party previously asserted that a claim which includes that term was obvious in an inter partes reexamination.” Accordingly, ASC was “estopped from asserting in this action that Claim 1 of the ʼ796 Patent is invalid as obvious in view of Webb and Reynolds because ASC raised or could have raised those invalidity grounds in the [reexamination].”
The District Court further noted in a footnote that “ASC could have raised its real argument—i.e., that the IPR added limitations to Claim 1” had it not “forfeited the chance to bring such a motion” (citing a sealed document).
Practice Tip: In light of estoppel provisions under pre- and post-AIA patent statutes, practitioners should proceed with caution when asserting the same prior art in district court that they asserted in prior proceedings, including reexaminations, before the USPTO. As shown in Victaulic, the Patent Act’s estoppel provisions are “severe” and may apply even if claims are interpreted or construed differently between the proceedings.
Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC., Civil Action No. 20-887-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2022).
Victaulic owns U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 (“the ʼ796 Patent”), which relates to a “deformable mechanical pipe coupling.” Independent claims 1, 21, 41 and 44 of the ʼ796 Patent each includes a “being deformable” limitation, which recites “said segments being deformable upon adjustable tightening of said connection members so as to substantially conform the curvature of said arcuate surfaces to the outer surfaces of said pipe elements within said circumferential grooves.”
In 2012, ASC requested inter partes reexamination of certain claims of the ʼ796 Patent, including claims 1, 21, 41 and 44. ASC’s request asserted obviousness grounds against those claims based on “Reynolds” and “Reynolds in view of Webb.” The USPTO instituted reexamination on both of those grounds but determined that the claims were “valid and patentable” in a final decision.
Notably, during reexamination, the USPTO agreed to add language to the “being deformable” limitation in claims 21, 41 and 44—but not in claim 1. However, the USPTO “mistakenly omitted” the added language from its decision, and the claims were not formally amended to add that language.
In 2020, Victaulic asserted claim 1 of the ʼ796 Patent against ASC in the District of Delaware, among other claims. In its invalidity contentions for claim 1, ASC again asserted “Reynolds” and “Reynolds in view of Webb.”
In a motion for summary judgment, Victaulic argued that ASC was estopped from asserting “Reynolds” or “Reynolds in view of Webb” against claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) because ASC raised those grounds in the reexamination proceedings. Section 315(c) states that a “third-party requester” like ASC is “estopped from asserting at a later time, in any civil action . . . the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the [] requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings.”
In response, ASC argued that its Reynolds and Webb-based obviousness grounds were not “raised” and “could not have been raised” in the reexamination proceedings because the two proceedings involve different claim interpretations of the “being deformable” limitation in claim 1. Specifically, ASC argued that, during reexamination, the USPTO applied a narrow interpretation of “being deformable” in claim 1 that necessarily included the additional language that was supposed to be added to claims 21, 41 and 41. Thus, according to ASC, estoppel should not apply because “Victaulic now asserts an interpretation of the [‘being deformable’] claim limitation . . . in claim 1 that is broader than the Board’s interpretation of the claim,” which presents new “issues” when asserting Reynolds and Webb in district court.
The District Court rejected ASC’s argument, ruled that estoppel applied, and granted summary judgment in favor of Victaulic. In coming to its conclusion, the District Court determined that “raised or could have raised” in § 315(c) refers to whether the same claims are at issue, not the same interpretations, citing In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, 856 F.3d 883, 891-92 (Fed. Cir. 2017). When ASC requested reexamination, claim 1 “had the same language as it has now,” which “has only ‘one correct construction.’” Accordingly, even if Victaulic is applying a different construction than the USPTO, that “does not change either how the Court must construe that term or whether a party previously asserted that a claim which includes that term was obvious in an inter partes reexamination.” Accordingly, ASC was “estopped from asserting in this action that Claim 1 of the ʼ796 Patent is invalid as obvious in view of Webb and Reynolds because ASC raised or could have raised those invalidity grounds in the [reexamination].”
The District Court further noted in a footnote that “ASC could have raised its real argument—i.e., that the IPR added limitations to Claim 1” had it not “forfeited the chance to bring such a motion” (citing a sealed document).
Practice Tip: In light of estoppel provisions under pre- and post-AIA patent statutes, practitioners should proceed with caution when asserting the same prior art in district court that they asserted in prior proceedings, including reexaminations, before the USPTO. As shown in Victaulic, the Patent Act’s estoppel provisions are “severe” and may apply even if claims are interpreted or construed differently between the proceedings.
Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC., Civil Action No. 20-887-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2022).
Previous Entries
IP Newsflash
February 12, 2025
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.
IP Newsflash
January 24, 2025
The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.
IP Newsflash
January 17, 2025
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.
IP Newsflash
January 17, 2025
The District of Arizona recently held that a plaintiff’s failure to mark patented products during the time period that marking was required barred it from recovering all pre-notice damages, including for a period of time when there was no obligation to mark.
IP Newsflash
January 16, 2025
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) aims to provide expeditious decisions for its litigants. That means that there is a higher bar for obtaining extensions of time. As exemplified in BMW v. ITCiCo, the UPC’s reluctance to grant extensions can have serious consequences, including revocation of the patent.
IP Newsflash
January 15, 2025
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as to the asserted grounds justified denial under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), holding that “simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularity requirement is not met.”
IP Newsflash
December 2, 2024
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and thus the same “inventive entity,” as the challenged claims.
IP Newsflash
December 2, 2024
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s assertion that petitioner should have named a third party, which was a defendant in a related district court patent infringement litigation and a party to a joint defense agreement (JDA) with petitioner, as a real party-in-interest (RPI). Had the board ruled otherwise and found the third party to be an RPI, the petition would have been time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.