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 Cir. 2022) (nonprecedential)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

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

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

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.