In IPR, No Collateral Estoppel Based on § 101 Ruling in District Court

Dec 17, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

The patent at issue claims a gaming system network and method for delivering gaming media. In a related patent infringement case, the District of Nevada held the patent invalid as directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In a parallel IPR proceeding, the petitioner asserted that the challenged claims were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its preliminary response, the patent owner argued that the petitioner was collaterally estopped from commencing IPR because the petitioner had already won a judgment of invalidity in district court. Although an appeal of that decision is pending, the patent owner argued that pendency of an appeal has no bearing on the issue preclusion analysis.

To evaluate the patent owner’s collateral estoppel argument, the PTAB considered whether: (1) the prior action presented an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party.

The PTAB agreed with the petitioner that none of the required elements of collateral estoppel were met because the district court’s invalidity holding was based on § 101, whereas only 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 arguments can be considered in an IPR. The district court action therefore did not present, or require determination of, an identical issue. Accordingly, the district court action did not actually litigate or adjudge the § 103 issues, or feature full representation of the petitioner on its § 103 arguments. The PTAB likened the facts and reasoning here to those in another recent IPR proceeding, in which the PTAB declined to exercise its discretion to deny institution based on a district court’s § 101 ruling in a parallel proceeding.

Upon rejection of the patent owner’s collateral estoppel argument, the PTAB analyzed the petitioner’s obviousness arguments and instituted the IPR.

Practice Tip: Patent challengers who have successfully invalidated a patent in district court should consider raising unaddressed invalidity grounds that are not subject to collateral estoppel in a given PTAB proceeding. This dual-pronged approach could provide patent challengers with alternate, and independently sufficient, bases to invalidate the claims of a target patent.

Playtika Ltd. v. NexRF Corp, IPR2021-00951, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2021).

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.