IPR Estoppel Does Not Prohibit ‘Cumulative or Duplicative’ System-Based Invalidity Defenses in District Court Actions

July 20, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

In a decision denying summary judgment, the District of Massachusetts weighed in on an unsettled issue: whether after receiving a final written decision in an inter partes review, a patent challenger is permitted to raise system-based invalidity defenses that are related to printed publications or patents that could have been raised in an IPR. The court’s answer was yes.

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant alleging infringement of three patents covering low-precision, high dynamic range, computer processing unit architectures. In response, Defendant filed several petitions for IPR of the patents-at-issue, contending that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. Defendant relied on three prior-art references in the IPR proceedings to support its unpatentability grounds, as well as additional patents and prior art references for background purposes. In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld the patentability of two claims that were asserted in the district court action. Based on the Board’s decision, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in an effort to prevent Defendant from raising what Plaintiff characterized as the same obviousness defense in district court.

According to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner “may not assert [] in a civil action…that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. Plaintiff argued that Defendant was statutorily estopped from raising the same obviousness defenses because any argument Defendant presented in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was one that Defendant either already raised, or reasonably could have raised, in the IPR proceedings. Also, because Defendant had already presented printed publications in the IPR that described the prior art systems, any further evidence of these prior-art systems was barred. In response, Defendant argued that when a party combines any evidence that could not have been presented in the IPR (i.e., any evidence outside of patents or printed publications) with any patent or printed publication, estoppel does not apply. Defendant further argued that because it was relying on different printed publications describing the prior-art systems, along with other forms of evidence, including source code, oral presentations and expert testimony, estoppel did not apply.

The court disagreed with both parties, stating that each party’s argument misconstrued the statutory language—Plaintiff’s interpretation was overly narrow and Defendant’s interpretation was too broad to the point of estoppel vitiation. The court defined “ground” in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) as “any anticipation or obviousness claim based on prior art in the form of a patent or printed publication.” Based on this definition, the court reasoned that while it is uncontested that estoppel applies to any raised patents and printed publications, and those which could have reasonably been raised, “[t]he Patent Act says nothing about estopping invalidity claims that are ‘cumulative’ or ‘duplicative’ of those raised in an IPR proceeding.” Ultimately, estoppel did not preclude Defendant from presenting other forms of evidence of the asserted prior-art systems.

Practice Tip

An IPR petitioner involved in a co-pending district court action should consider including in its invalidity defenses prior art evidence in other forms besides patents or printed publications, including any relevant evidence of prior art products and systems. As evidenced by this district court decision, such evidence may be immune from IPR estoppel and may be used in district court to support invalidity even in light of a final written decision in a related IPR.

Case

Singular Computing LLC v. Google LLC, Civil Action No. 19-12551-FDS (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2023)

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.