PTAB: Unidirectional Language of AIA Estoppel Dooms Common-Law Claim Preclusion Argument Based on District Court’s Final Judgment of No Invalidity

July 24, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Caitlin E. Olwell, Rubén H. Muñoz, Ange Christiani (Law Clerk)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim preclusion inapplicable as a basis for termination.

Patent Owner moved to terminate an IPR after Petitioner successfully joined the proceeding, which was originally filed by another party. Because Petitioner had unsuccessfully litigated invalidity of the patent in district court, Patent Owner argued that termination was proper on a theory of claim preclusion. The district court had issued a final judgment of no invalidity after Patent Owner and Petitioner had fully and fairly argued their cases. Petitioner’s joinder in the IPR, Patent Owner alleged, was nothing more than a collateral attack on the final judgment. Petitioner responded that common-law claim preclusion does not apply to IPRs due to differing burdens of proof between district court actions and IPRs, and the proceedings lacking the same nucleus of operative facts. 

While the Board ultimately decided in favor of Petitioner, it shored up its analysis on three prongs of support: (1) the opinion of the Court in Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991), (2) the explicit language in the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) and (3) the Congressional intent in passing 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). 

First, the Board found that contrary to Patent Owner’s interpretation, Astoria stood for the premise that the presumption of common-law preclusion exists only as far as “Congress has failed to expressly or impliedly evince any intention on the issue.”

Second, the Board dissected the language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) and found that it exhibits a one-way avenue. According to the Board, Section 315(e) states that following a final written decision, the petitioner in an IPR “may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office,” nor “assert either in a civil action…or in a proceeding before the ITC” a challenge to a claim on a ground petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during the inter partes review.” The Board further noted that the statute is silent on the reverse scenario: a party in a fully-litigated district court action later challenging the same claim on the same grounds in an IPR.

Third, the Board concluded that Congress’ act of passing the AIA, which contained its own specific estoppel provisions, “evinced” the intention that common-law claim preclusion was superseded. The Board determined that existence of different burdens of proof between IPRs and district court actions, the removal of the dual-directional language from the predecessor statute to IPR (inter partes reexamination (35 U.S.C. § 317)) and the need to give effect to § 315—which would become redundant if interpreted to be multi-directional—all evidenced Congress’ intent for IPR estoppel as a unidirectional barricade.

Practice Tip: With its one-way estoppel provision confirmed by at least one PTAB panel, the AIA appears to provide patent challengers a second bite at the apple in an IPR proceeding. After receiving a final judgment in district court, patent challengers who fail to prove invalidity by clear-and-convincing evidence may not be precluded from bringing the same claims and evidence against a patentee under a lower burden of proof, and should consider this avenue as a viable option in their overall litigation strategy.

OpenSky Indus. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 132 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2023)

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.