Federal Circuit: Burden of Proof in IPR Estoppel Rests with Patentee, Not Accused Infringer

July 11, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

In an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the Federal Circuit confirmed that on the issue of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, the burden of proof rests on the patentee to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled searcher exercising reasonable diligence would have identified any non-petitioned grounds. Aside from other disputes between the defendant Valve Corporation and patentee Ironburg Inventions, the court addressed the argument that Valve should not have been estopped from asserting invalidity grounds it sought to raise against the challenged patent. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings regarding the estoppel issue.

Simultaneously with the initial district court litigation, Valve filed an IPR petition, which was instituted on certain grounds but not others. Ironburg sought and was granted an order by the district court applying IPR estoppel on these non-instituted grounds as well as “non-petitioned grounds,” which were grounds that Valve discovered based on a third party’s IPR petition that was filed after Valve’s own IPR petition. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), an IPR petitioner of a claim challenged in an IPR that results in a final written decision may not assert that the same claim is invalid in a later civil suit “on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to apply IPR estoppel on the non-instituted grounds, concluding that they were explicitly raised during the IPR. While Valve had the opportunity following the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu to seek remand of its IPR for the board to institute on all grounds, it declined to do so, and the court held that this decision did not shield it from estoppel on these non-instituted grounds.

As to the non-petitioned grounds, the district court determined that an IPR petitioner “reasonably could have raised” any grounds that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover. As such, the district court placed the burden on Valve as the party challenging the patent’s validity to show that it could not have been expected to discover the non-petitioned grounds. Valve showed evidence of its search and indicated that it was diligent yet did not uncover key prior art references at issue. Nonetheless, the district court concluded that Valve offered no evidence concerning the degree of difficulty involved in locating those references and estopped them from asserting the non-petitioned grounds.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined, following the trend of other district courts placing the burden solely on the patent owner, that the burden was erroneously placed on Valve rather than Ironburg to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled searcher exercising reasonable diligence would have identified these invalidity grounds. Therefore, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court to determine if Ironburg could meet that burden.

Practice Tip: Following an IPR challenge, a patentee seeking to estop a district court defendant from asserting any non-petitioned grounds should set forth evidence showing those grounds reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. This typically includes evidence that a reasonable search would have identified the non-petitioned prior art references that are being asserted in the district court proceeding.

Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2021-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

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.