District of Delaware: IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to Prior-Art Products

Jul 29, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

The court initially noted that it was undisputed that the defendant could not have raised the prior-art products during a related IPR proceeding. However, the patentee had argued that the prior-art products at issue in the district court case were “cumulative” to the paper-based prior art that the defendant had asserted in the IPR proceeding. As such, the patentee argued that the defendant was still estopped from pursuing invalidity defenses based on the products. The court explained that although it had agreed to hear evidence on the cumulativeness of the prior-art products, the dispute could be settled without a hearing.

The court resolved the dispute by looking at the text of the estoppel statute and using “well-accepted canons of construction.” The court first explained that by the plain text of the statute, estoppel only applies to grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR proceeding. Furthermore, even though the term “ground” was not defined in the statute, other courts had interpreted it to mean the “specific pieces of prior art” involved in the challenge. Adopting the same interpretation, the court reasoned that because prior-art products cannot not be raised in an IPR, such products cannot not be a “ground” that is subject to statutory estoppel.

The court acknowledged that the issue is not settled. Across the country, judges have reached varying conclusions, including a decision in which the former Chief Judge of the District of Delaware ruled that Section 315(e)(2) estoppel did apply to a prior-art product, given the circumstances of that case. Nevertheless, the court reasoned that adhering closely to the statutory text was the most appropriate course given that neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit has decided the issue.

The court also explained that Congress had chosen the statutory text after “considered debate and careful thought.” And because Congress could have provided broader categories of estoppel but did not do so, the court should not seek to create additional bases for estoppel.

Practice tip:

This decision highlights an on-going struggle among district courts about the scope of IPR estoppel. Until the scope is clarified, at least in the first instance by the Federal Circuit, parties should consider carefully whether estoppel might apply to invalidity grounds premised on prior-art products. Parties should look to decisions from within the district court and, more specifically, the presiding judge to determine how estoppel has been applied.

Chemours Co. FC LLC v. Daikin Indus., Ltd., 2022 WL 2643517, C.A. No. 17-1612 (MN) (D. Del. July 8, 2022)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does
not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the
invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The
Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the
named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other
language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and
what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited
reference met the test.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by
specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in
weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the
discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that
litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily
in favor of the bar.
...

Read More

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.
...

Read More

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.
...

Read More

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.
...

Read More

© 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.