District of Delaware Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to Device Art

December 29, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of patents or printed publications that were, or could have been, asserted in an IPR.

In a patent infringement litigation related to computer-controlled scent delivery systems, the patentee ultimately narrowed its case to six claims across two patents after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had found several other claims unpatentable in an IPR. The patentee moved for summary judgment of no anticipation, arguing that the defendant was estopped from asserting that the claims were anticipated by certain devices because those devices are materially identical to a patent that the defendant could have raised in its IPR challenge. In opposition, the defendant argued that the device is different from the patent, and, in any event, IPR estoppel does not apply to device art. Thus, according to the defendant, it was not precluded from arguing anticipation based on the devices.

The court noted that there is a split among district courts (even within Delaware) as to whether IPR estoppel extends to such device art and the key disagreement is in the interpretation of the term “ground” as used in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which governs IPR estoppel. That provision extends estoppel to “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during a prior IPR. The court explained that “[t]there are two plausible ways of interpreting ‘grounds’ in the IPR context. One interpretation is that ‘grounds’ refers to the underlying legal arguments, which incorporate patents, printed publications, and cumulative device art. The other is that ‘grounds’ are the particular patents and printed publications on which invalidity arguments are based, and that the supporting affidavits, declarations, and the like are evidence, not ‘grounds.’”

The court agreed with a previous Delaware decision and adopted the second theory, interpreting the term “grounds” to mean “the specific pieces of prior art that are the bases on which a petitioner challenges a claim.”1 In doing so, the court explained that such interpretation of “grounds” is consistent with the way the term has been used in a similar context in 35 U.S.C. § 312, which mandates that the petition must detail the grounds for the challenge and the supporting evidence for the groundsthus differentiating the grounds from the evidence itself. The court further noted that this approach is in line with how the term “grounds” has been used by the Federal Circuit in the IPR context, as “the legal argument and specific combination of references on which it was based.” Accordingly, the court held that the defendant was not estopped from relying on the prior art devices.

Practice Tip: Until the Federal Circuit clarifies the scope and applicability of IPR estoppel, parties are well advised to present arguments on the proper scope of § 315(e)(2), but they must also pay close attention to how estoppel has been applied within their district and adapt legal strategies accordingly.


1 For further discussion of the previous Delaware case, see this IP Newsflash.

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.