Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of IPR Estoppel, Reversing Prior Shaw Decision

Feb 23, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

Section 315(e)(2) sets forth the scope of IPR estoppel in civil litigation. Under that Section, the petitioner in an IPR that results in a final written decision “may not assert … any [invalidity] ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during that IPR. In Shaw, the Federal Circuit held that because an IPR does not begin until it is instituted, only those grounds on which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes review meet the “raised or reasonably could have been raised” standard, and therefore, only those grounds that actually get reviewed during the IPR were subject to estoppel. 

However, because Shaw only involved a ground that was raised in the petition, but was not instituted by the PTAB, district courts split on whether that decision extended to grounds that were not included in the petition.

In California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd, a panel of the Federal Circuit was asked to clarify the scope of IPR estoppel. In that case, multiple accused infringers filed petitions for IPRs that were instituted, but ultimately unsuccessful. Failing to invalidate the claims through IPRs, the accused infringers raised new prior art invalidity grounds in the district court that were not presented to the PTAB. The district court held the accused infringers were estopped from raising those grounds because they were aware of the prior art references when the IPR petitions were filed, and could have raised them in the petitions.

The Federal Circuit agreed, holding that IPR estoppel applies to all grounds that a petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised at the time the petition was filed. In so doing, the court reversed its decision in Shaw. As the court explained, at the time Shaw was decided, the PTAB would often institute IPRs on fewer than all grounds raised in an IPR (as in Shaw). Thus, it made sense at the time that a petitioner should not be barred from later litigating grounds that were not reviewed in an IPR. After Shaw, however, the Supreme Court’s SAS Institute decision made clear that the PTAB’s institution authority did not permit partial institution. Rather, the PTAB was required to institute on all grounds or deny institution. Under SAS Institute, it is the petition that defines the IPR and any resulting estoppel.

The panel also clarified its authority to overrule a prior decision of the Federal Circuit without en banc activity. While acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute did not explicitly overrule Shaw, the panel explained that the reasoning in Shaw rests on an assumption that the Supreme Court rejected. Thus, SAS Institute sufficiently undercut the theory or reasoning underlying Shaw, such that the rulings were irreconcilable, which permitted the panel in this case to overrule the Shaw panel’s decision. 

Practice Tip: Because the Federal Circuit has now clarified that IPR estoppel extends to all grounds that could have been raised in an IPR petition that results in a final written decision, petitioners should consider all defenses, including those that cannot be raised at the PTAB (e.g., evidence of prior use, Section 112 defenses), when evaluating whether to petition for IPR.

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.