District Court Holds That Patent Validity Is a Single Issue for Collateral Estoppel Purposes

May 15, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

In a previous lawsuit between the parties (the “First Action”), Cisco’s Remote Expert product was found to infringe XU’s U.S. Patent No. 7,499,903 (the “’903 Patent”) and the jury and the court found that claim 12 of the ’903 Patent was not invalid. In this case, XU alleges continued infringement of the ’903 Patent by Cisco based on later versions of the Remote Expert product..

Cisco moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ’903 Patent is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invalidity defense that was not raised in the First Action.  In response, XU moved for partial summary judgment that Cisco is estopped from pursuing any invalidity arguments against the ’903 Patent, including under Section 101, after unsuccessfully challenging the validity of the ’903 Patent in the First Action.

Cisco’s ability to bring its Section 101 defense hinged on whether patent validity is a single issue or whether each ground for asserting an invalidity defense (e.g., obviousness, anticipation) is a separate issue. The court ruled that patent validity – including Section 101 challenges – is a single issue. The court reasoned that Cisco’s proposed invalidity contentions were nothing more than particular arguments directed to the issue of patent validity, which had already been decided in the First Action. In reaching its decision, the court relied on a number of district courts that viewed patent validity as a single issue, because the Federal Circuit has not addressed whether multiple theories of invalidity constitute “different” issues for collateral estoppel purposes. The district court acknowledged that its decision might conflict with the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the Federal Circuit held that issue preclusion did not apply to a defendant’s Section 101 defense when no evidence or argument relating to that defense was presented in a prior litigation and because patent validity was not necessary to the prior judgment. Id. at 1383–84. But the district court differentiated the instant case from Voter Verified based on underlying circuit law. In Voter Verified, the Federal Circuit applied the 11th Circuit’s test for issue preclusion in reaching its decision, which, unlike the applicable 9th Circuit’s inquiry, requires that the issue in question be actually raised and that the issue be necessary to support the prior judgment. Therefore, according to the court, Voter Verified does not apply.

 

Xpertuniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 17-cv-03848-RS (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018 Order) (Seeborg, USDJ)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.