Collateral Estoppel Causes PTAB to Reverse Course and Institute IPR

November 14, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a request for rehearing and instituted inter partes review of a web browsing patent in order to reconcile an inconsistency with a final judgment of unpatentability in the IPR of a related patent. The ultimate decision to institute review rested on a finding that patent owner was collaterally estopped from arguing against a factual finding about a prior art reference relevant to both IPRs.

After the PTAB denied institution of the present IPR, petitioner filed a request for rehearing. In their briefing, the parties discussed the final written decision in an earlier IPR finding unpatentable the claims of a related patent. In that decision, the PTAB found, and patent owner did not argue to the contrary, that a prior art reference disclosed a certain limitation related to ranking multiple websites. In the present IPR, petitioner argued that the PTAB overlooked this disclosure in the prior art reference. Both parties and the PTAB agreed that the final decision in the earlier IPR and the decision denying institution of the present IPR were inconsistent. Petitioner asserted that rehearing was necessary to resolve this conflict. Meanwhile, patent owner asked the current PTAB panel to maintain its decision despite the conflict. 

The PTAB agreed with petitioner that rehearing was appropriate. Specifically, applying a four-element test, the PTAB agreed that collateral estoppel barred patent owner from relitigating the issue of whether the prior art reference discloses the website-ranking limitation. First, the PTAB found that the language of claims in the patent-at-issue and the related patent were sufficiently similar such that the issue of whether the reference disclosed the limitation was the same between the two IPRs. Second, the PTAB found that the issue was actually litigated in the first IPR. The PTAB rejected patent owner’s argument that collateral estoppel should not apply because patent owner did not introduce evidence or argument about the ranking limitation in the first IPR. Third, the issue of whether the limitation was present in the reference was essential to the final judgment of invalidity in the first IPR. Fourth, the PTAB found that patent owner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first IPR but failed to do so in either its response or its sur-reply.

Upon finding that collateral estoppel applied, the PTAB declined to consider patent owner’s arguments as to why a combination including the prior art reference did not render obvious the claims of the patent-at-issue. Petitioner had therefore established a reasonable likelihood of showing that at least one challenged claim of the patent-at-issue was unpatentable, warranting institution of IPR. 

Practice tip: It is well established that collateral estoppel applies to IPR proceedings and is not limited to patent claims that are identical. A party should take care in earlier litigations to preserve arguments and take positions that will not be to its detriment in later litigations. These considerations are especially germane to patent owners who may have large patent portfolios relating to a single subject matter and whose arguments in defense of one patent may limit what it can argue in subsequent proceedings.

Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00279, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to
invalidate claims in district court.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s
later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s
patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory
forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.
...

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.