Federal Circuit: New Invalidity Argument Presented to PTAB for the First Time on Remand from Appeal Is Forfeit

Sep 19, 2022

Reading Time : 1 min

In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness determination by the PTAB when it found the PTAB applied an incorrect construction of the claim term “grant pending absent state.” The Federal Circuit then adopted the construction proposed by the patent owner in its response, and remanded the case to the PTAB to reconsider obviousness in view of the proper construction.

On remand to the PTAB, the petitioner reasserted its prior position that the prior art combination recited all the limitations of the challenged claims. The petitioner also raised, for the first time, an alternative theory—that if the second prior art combination did not disclose a “grant pending absent state,” it would have been obvious to modify the prior art to include this limitation. The PTAB accepted this alternative theory and again found the challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the petitioner’s alternative theory was untimely for being raised for the first time on remand.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner. According to the Federal Circuit, the particular facts of this case did not present the petitioner with an opportunity to raise its alternative theory on remand. Namely, the alternative theory was responsive to a claim construction position advanced by the patent owner in its response, i.e., before the first appeal. Thus, the petitioner was on notice of the possible claim construction dispute, and should have raised any alternative unpatentability arguments in its reply to the response. Because the petitioner failed to do so at that time, it forfeited the opportunity to raise any such argument on remand.

The Federal Circuit declined to address whether the petitioner was obligated to raise its alternative theory in its petition for inter partes review (IPR) for it to be timely raised because that question was not addressed by the PTAB.

Practice Tip: This case illustrates the importance of addressing the potential impact of the opposing side’s arguments at the first opportunity during an IPR. Failing to do so may result in forfeiture, as it did here.

Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc., 2021-2112 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (nonprecedential)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.