United States: District Courts Split On Scope Of IPR Estoppel

While the inter partes review procedure is nearly five years old, in many respects, the law remains unsettled and continues to evolve. This can be seen from recent district court decisions differing in their interpretation of the scope of IPR estoppel.

The Federal Circuit's Shaw Decision Sets the Stage for IPR Estoppel

In March 2016, the Federal Circuit in Shaw1 considered the scope of IPR estoppel under Section 315(e), holding that it does not extend to grounds rejected by the PTAB in a decision instituting IPR petitions.

Shaw filed an IPR challenging certain patent claims on three grounds—two asserting obviousness and one asserting anticipation by a different prior-art reference. The PTAB instituted IPR based on the two obviousness grounds, but denied institution based on the anticipation ground, which—without further explanation—it deemed "redundant" to the obviousness grounds. After a trial on the merits, the PTAB determined that Shaw had not proven these claims to be unpatentable.

Shaw appealed the final written decision, and also petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the PTAB to reconsider its institution decision. The stringent requirements for a writ of mandamus were satisfied, Shaw argued, because the final decision in the IPR created an estoppel under Section 315(e) preventing Shaw from raising the anticipation ground (or other grounds) in the future, even though neither the PTAB nor the court had evaluated its merits.

Section 315(e) recites:

(1) Proceedings before the office.— The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.

(2) Civil actions and other proceedings.— The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not assert either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.2

The Federal Circuit denied mandamus, disagreeing with Shaw, and accepting the argument of the USPTO (as intervenor) that estoppel does not apply in these circumstances.3 IPR proceeds in two phases: first, the PTAB evaluates the petition to determine whether to institute IPR; second, the PTAB conducts the IPR itself and makes a final decision based on the evidence.4 Therefore, the court reasoned, if the PTAB rejects a ground in its institution decision, it never becomes part of the IPR itself, and so is not a "ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review."5 Since the PTAB's redundancy decision did not give rise to estoppel with respect to the anticipation ground, as it specifically prevented Shaw from raising that ground in the IPR, Shaw may argue that ground in the future court proceedings, and mandamus was not warranted.

District Courts' Conflicting Interpretation of IPR Estoppel

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp. (D. Del.): Narrow Estoppel

Judge Robinson of the District Court of Delaware recently weighed in on post-Shaw IPR estoppel, taking it one, very significant step further. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp.,6 Judge Robinson held that Section 315(e) estoppel applies only to grounds actually instituted. In other words, estoppel does not apply even to grounds never raised in the petition.

Toshiba filed a petition for IPR, asserting four grounds of invalidity: two based on anticipation and two based on obviousness. The PTAB instituted on one of the obviousness grounds and denied the remaining grounds. The PTAB ultimately issued its final written decision, finding unpatentable the challenged claims on the sole instituted ground. While IV's Federal Circuit appeal was pending, IV moved for partial summary judgment in the district court based on IPR estoppel, arguing that Toshiba should be estopped from asserting invalidity of the challenged claims based on either (1) the instituted obviousness ground itself; or (2) an obviousness combination involving references not presented to the PTAB—because it "could have been raised" in the IPR.7 Toshiba responded that IV's motion was "fundamentally unfair," and that a stay "makes most sense, as the Federal Circuit appeal likely will result in the patent claims being confirmed as invalid."8

Judge Robinson denied the stay, and, with respect to the instituted obviousness ground, agreed with IV, holding it consistent with the plain language of Section 315(e) and Shaw. However, with respect to the additional obviousness combination not before the PTAB, Judge Robinson disagreed. Relying on Shaw, Judge Robinson found that "[a]lthough IV's argument in this regard is perfectly plausible, in the sense that Toshiba certainly could have raised these additional obviousness grounds based on public documents at the outset of their IPR petition, the Federal Circuit has construed the [language of Section 315(e)(2)] quite literally."9 She continued, "the Court determined in Shaw that, because the PTAB rejected a certain invalidity ground proposed by the IPR petitioner, no IPR was instituted on that ground, and, therefore, petitioner 'did not raise—nor could it have reasonably raised—the [rejected] ground during the IPR.'"10 While expressing concerns that "extending [this] logic to prior art references never presented to the PTAB at all (despite their public nature) confounds the very purpose of this parallel administrative proceeding," Judge Robinson felt she was nonetheless bound and unable to "divine a reasoned way around the Federal Circuit's interpretation in Shaw."11

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Narrow Estoppel

Judge Illston of the Northern District of California grappled with a similar issue in Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.12

Verinata argued that Shaw applies only to grounds actually presented in an IPR petition, and denied institution because they are found "redundant."13 Judge Illston determined otherwise. According to Judge Illston, Shaw has a much broader application, namely, it applies to any "noninstituted ground," regardless of whether the ground was included in the IPR petition.14 Like Judge Robinson, Judge Illston found that the Shaw court "interpret[ed] the IPR estoppel language literally, plainly stating that only arguments raised or that reasonably could have been raised during IPR are subject to estoppel."15 That is, under Shaw's literal reading, any ground not actually instituted was not raised, nor could it have been raised, during the IPR, and, thus, no estoppel attaches.16 She also noted that "[s]ince Shaw, courts have read the decision accordingly," citing to, among other decisions, Judge Robinson in Intellectual Ventures I.17

However, Judge Illston—unlike Judge Robinson—appeared to agree with the underlying rationale to read Section 315(e) quite literally: "limiting IPR estoppel to grounds actually instituted ensures that estoppel applies only to those arguments, or potential arguments, that received (or reasonably could have received) proper judicial attention."18

Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int'l Business Machines Corp. (D. Del.): Broad Estoppel

Third Circuit Judge Jordan (sitting by designation in the District of Delaware) found in Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int'l Business Machines Corp.19 that "[a] broad estoppel provision [35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)] prevents inter partes review petitioners from raising arguments in federal court that could have been raised during their IPRs."20

IBM had joined four already-instituted IPR petitions, filing essentially identical petitions. Although the PTAB instituted on all grounds, it found in its Final Written Decisions that IBM failed to show that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable.21 IBM then sought in district court to invalidate the same challenged claims "based on prior art combinations of which it was aware before it filed its IPR Petitions" and included in its invalidity contentions a year before it filed the IPR petitions.22

Parallel Networks argued that these prior art combinations "reasonably could have been raised," and thus, IBM "should not be able to raise them here."23

IBM countered that it could not have raised the combinations due to the procedural posture of its petitions: because it joined already-instituted IPRs (as opposed to filing its own independent IPRs), it was limited to the arguments and grounds presented in the already-instituted IPRs.24

Judge Jordan disagreed with IBM, finding that, "[d]espite IBM's claims to the contrary, there is 'no mirror image rule' for joinder."25 According to Judge Jordan, "[a]llowing IBM to raise arguments here that it elected not to raise during the IPR would give it a second bite at the apple and allow it to reap the benefits of the IPR without the downside of meaningful estoppel."26 Thus, "to prevent that unfair result," Judge Jordan "conclude[d] that IBM is estopped from asserting prior art references that it could have reasonably raised before the PTAB."27 Interestingly, in doing so, Judge Jordan did not cite to Shaw.

Takeaways

Under the broader interpretation that is implicit in Judge Jordan's reasoning, patent challengers in most cases would be estopped from using any patent- or publication-based prior-art arguments in a district court litigation that follows an IPR. Under the narrower interpretation applied by Judges Robinson and Illston, a patent challenger would be estopped only on grounds that were actually litigated in the PTAB. In between is the interpretation that would result if the Shaw holding is limited to its facts, under which the estoppel would apply to every ground except those that the challenger raised in its IPR request, but failed to convince the PTAB to accept for institution.

Given the conflicting interpretations of the estoppel statute and the Shaw decision so far,28 we expect the Federal Circuit to soon provide further guidance on the intended scope of Shaw, and in particular, whether grounds that were never raised in an IPR proceeding fall within the scope of Section 315(e)'s "reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review" language. It seems logical that broader estoppel would mean fewer IPR requests, and narrower estoppel would mean more IPR requests. However, as a practical matter it may well be that there are very few cases in which the breadth of the estoppel would affect the challenger's decision to request IPR. In that case, narrowing the estoppel would not encourage additional IPR filings, and would only result in more follow-on district court validity litigation—which was certainly not Congress's intent in enacting the AIA.

Footnotes

1 Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

2 35 U.S.C § 315(e).

3 Shaw, 817 F.3d at 1300.

4 Id.

5 Id. (emphasis in original).

6 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., No. 13-453-SLR, 2016 WL 7341713 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2016), reconsideration denied, 2017 WL 107980 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2017).

7 Id. at *12.

8 Id.

9 Id. at *13 (emphasis added).

10 Id. (quoting Shaw, 817 F.3d at 1300) (alteration and emphasis in original).

11 Id. On reconsideration, Judge Robinson reiterated her view that the "outcome does not strike [her] as necessarily consistent with the notion of having a parallel administrative proceeding that is supposed to supplant litigation and provide a faster, cheaper, better resolution to patent disputes" and, while she maintained her original decision, she did so "with the hopes that an appeal may clarify the issue for future judges in future cases." Intellectual Ventures I, 2017 WL 107980 at *1–2.

12 Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2017 WL 235048 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017).

13 Id. at *3.

14 Id.

15 Id. (citing Shaw, 817 F.3d at 1300) (emphasis in original).

16 See id.

17 Id. (citing HP Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC, 817 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he noninstituted grounds do not become a part of the IPR. . . . [T]he noninstituted grounds were not raised and, as review was denied, could not be raised in the IPR." (alteration in original)); Illumina, Inc. v. Qiagen, N.V., No. 16-2788-WHA, 2016 WL 4719269, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2016) ("The Federal Circuit recently held that statutory estoppel does not apply to grounds raised in a petition but not instituted. . . . Thus, the arguments that Qiagen raises herein, which were not instituted by the IPR, are not barred by Section 315(e)(2)."); Intellectual Ventures I, 2016 WL 7341713, at *13 ("[I]n Shaw[,] . . . because the PTAB rejected a certain invalidity ground proposed by the IPR petitioner, no IPR was instituted on that ground and, therefore, petitioner 'did not raise—nor could it have reasonably raised—the [rejected] ground during the IPR.'" (alterations in original))).

18 Id. at *3.

19 No. 13-cv-2072 (KAJ) (Feb. 22, 2017) (slip op.).

20 Id. at 24.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 25.

24 Id.

25 Id. at 26.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 See also, e.g., Great West Casualty Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2016-01534, Paper 13 at 1 (PTAB Feb. 15, 2017) (disagreeing with Intellectual Ventures I and Verinata and holding that, under Shaw, estoppel applies to grounds that a petitioner could have but "elected not to raise" in a petition).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.