Merger of District Court Dismissals Torpedoes Appeal from PTAB Decision at Federal Circuit

August 21, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had filed a second amended complaint, but then voluntarily dismissed the case without asking the district court to vacate its prior invalidity ruling, which it also never appealed. The Federal Circuit held that the initial invalidity order was interlocutory when issued but merged with the voluntary dismissal with prejudice, making the invalidity determination final and the present appeal moot.

The patentee was the assignee of patents for wireless earphones. It filed a patent infringement suit against a first defendant in the Western District of Texas. The same day, it also filed an infringement suit against a second defendant in the same court, asserting the same patents. The first defendant challenged venue and separately filed IPR petitions against the asserted patents.

After the PTAB issued final written decisions finding the asserted claims unpatentable, the patentee appealed. During this time, the patentee’s action against the second defendant had been transferred to the Northern District of California, which found the claims of the asserted patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter, but granted the patentee leave to amend its complaint. After the patentee filed a second amended complaint and the second defendant filed a motion to dismiss, the patentee voluntarily stipulated to dismiss the suit with prejudice. In doing so, the patentee never requested that the court vacate its order of invalidity. The California court then entered an order formally dismissing the patentee’s suit with prejudice. The patentee did not appeal that order. 

Given the Northern District of California’s dismissal with prejudice, the first defendant moved to dismiss the patentees IPR appeals as moot on the grounds that the California court had already invalidated the asserted claims. The issue was thus whether the claims in the present appeal were invalid due to prejudicial dismissal by the California court, precluding the patentee from asserting those claims against the first defendant. The patentee argued that the California court's initial invalidation order was superseded by its second amended complaint. The Federal Circuit disagreed with the patentee’s argument that the district court’s invalidity ruling became null by its filing of a second amended complaint. 

According to Ninth Circuit law, prior dismissals do not need to be raised in amended complaints to be appealable. Applying this precedent, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee was able to appeal the district court’s initial invalidity order without realleging its claims in a second complaint. But here, the patentee’s right to appeal was affected by its own decision to dismiss its suit with prejudice. Thus, the California court's invalidity order merged with its final order dismissing the case with prejudice. Put differently, the invalidity order was not final and appealable when it first issued but became so when the patentee voluntarily dismissed the suit without having the invalidity order vacated. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patent claims were invalid, making the present IPR appeal moot.

Practice Tip: Parties with concurrently pending suits in different venues must be wary of judgments in those venues for potential preclusive effects. When determining whether dismissing a suit is appropriate, parties must ensure they preserve their right to appeal or risk losing the chance to assert their patents against other defendants.

Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 107 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

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.