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

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.