Estoppel Does Not Apply to Prior Art Disclosed in Invalidity Contentions Served Before the Filing of an IPR Petition

Jan 10, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

In Philips v. Wangs, plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Lighting North America Corp. (“Philips”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant Wangs Alliance Corp. (WAC) asserting seven patents. During the course of litigation, WAC served preliminary and supplemental invalidity contentions in the district court case. As a defense to this lawsuit, WAC petitioned for IPR of certain claims of the seven asserted patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review with respect to claims in six of the asserted patents and issued a final decision finding unpatentable some of the challenged claims.

After the PTAB’s final decision issued, Philips moved for summary judgment in district court of no invalidity. Philips’ motion was based on two grounds: (1) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), WAC is estopped from asserting prior art disclosed in its preliminary and supplemental invalidity contentions; and (2) any invalidity contention that WAC did not disclose in its preliminary and supplemental invalidity contentions should fail as untimely.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), “the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision” may not assert in a civil action that the claim is invalid on a ground that “petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during an IPR. Philips argued that the prior art in the invalidity disclosures could have been raised in WAC’s IPR petition and is thus barred from the district court litigation. The dispute between the parties hinged on whether during IPR means only the portion of the proceedings after the review is instituted or the entirety of the IPR proceedings, including the filing of the petition. The court relied on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Industries Group and concluded that the phrase refers to only the period of time after review is instituted, and estoppel does not apply “to arguments that the petitioner only ‘raised or reasonably could have raised’ in its petition rather than after institution of review.”  The court denied Philips’ motion with respect to invalidity contentions that WAC failed to raise in its petition for IPR and determined that there was no estoppel.

Philips also argued that any invalidity contention that WAC did not disclose in its preliminary and supplemental invalidity contentions should fail as untimely. The court denied this basis because WAC’s final invalidity contentions were not yet due.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., 1:14-cv-12298-DJC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 607 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2018).

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.