Court Narrows Invalidity Case Through IPR Estoppel, but Federal Circuit’s Shaw Decision Keeps Some Arguments Alive

May 9, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

Under § 315(e), a final decision in an IPR on the validity of a patent claim, generally precludes a later challenge to the validity of a patent claim on any ground that a petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” In Shaw, the Patent Trial and Appeal (PTAB) instituted the IPR on most of the grounds in the petition, but declined to institute the IPR based on a prior art reference called “Payne.” The Federal Circuit was faced with deciding whether § 315(e) would prevent the petitioner from making a subsequent invalidity challenge based on Payne. Reading § 315(e) strictly and narrowly, the Federal Circuit determined that estoppel did not attach to Payne, reasoning that the petitioner “did not raise—nor could it have reasonably raised—the Payne-based ground during the IPR” because “[t]he IPR does not begin until it is instituted.”

For patent infringement defendants, the Federal Circuit’s rationale presented a tempting strategic possibility. One reading of Shaw is that estoppel might attach to only those grounds that the PTAB relies on in instituting an IPR, leaving open the possibility of an invalidity challenge on every other ground.  

Judge Peterson in the Western District of Wisconsin, however, recently rejected that possibility in Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 14-cv-886-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 18, 2017). There, the defendant’s invalidity arguments fell into two categories: (1) prior art that was raised in an IPR petition, but that was not used by the PTAB to institute the IPR, and (2) previously unasserted prior art. The first category was easy—this was plainly the fact pattern of Shaw, and the court allowed those invalidity arguments to go forward. The court, however, tossed the second category of invalidity arguments.

In the court’s view, allowing post-IPR assertion of non-petitioned grounds “undermines the purported efficiency of IPR.” In short, the legislative history suggests that Congress intended for IPRs to be “a complete substitute” for district court litigation over patent validity. If defendants can “hold a second-string invalidity case in reserve in case the IPR does not go the defendant’s way,” then IPR is not a substitute for district court litigation, but rather an additional step in the process. The Court further noted that at least two other courts—the Middle District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois—have held similarly. Based on this ruling, a defendant who wants to preserve as many possible grounds for challenging invalidity will want to put all of its grounds in its IPR petition. Any grounds that are not used as the basis for instituting the IPR could then become the petitioner’s “second-string” arguments to be used in district court.

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

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

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.