Claim Construction in PTAB Order Denying Petition for Inter Partes Review Does Not Have Preclusive Effect in District Court

Dec 17, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

In its preliminary response, Patent Owner stated that it disagreed with Defendant’s construction, but did not provide a separate construction. It then argued that the claims were not anticipated. The PTAB agreed with Patent Owner and denied the petition. Defendant then filed a motion to modify the court’s claim construction, arguing that collateral estoppel should apply, because the PTAB relied on its claim construction in denying the IPR petition.

The court held that the PTAB’s choice not to institute an IPR is not the type of adjudication that leads to issue preclusion. The court also noted that without analysis, the court adopted the defendant’s construction in finding that the presented prior art did not anticipate the claims. The fact that the Patent Owner did not provide the PTAB with any construction did not weigh in favor of issue preclusion in a preliminary proceeding.

Adidas AG et al v. Under Armour Inc., No, 1-14-cv-00130 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2015).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.