Minnesota Court Interprets Scope of Estoppel for CBM Review

Mar 19, 2018

Reading Time : 1 min

Back in district court after the failed CBM review, Bancorp asserted another obviousness defense based on a different patent application (Randle ’717), a sibling application to the Randle ’283 application asserted in the PTAB.  Solutran filed a motion in limine, arguing that Bancorp was estopped from asserting obviousness arguments in district court.  Solutran’s estoppel argument was rooted in the estoppel provision of the CBM review statute, which provides that the petitioner in the CBM review “may not assert . . . in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, United States Code . . . that the claim was invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised during [the CBM review].”  See Pub. L. 112-27, § 18(a)(1)(D), 125 Stat. 330 (2011).  Solutran contended that the word “ground” in the statute was not limited to the specific obviousness arguments asserted in the CBM review.  Judge Nelson denied the motion, holding that “the word ‘ground’ in the CBM estoppel provision refers to a discrete claim of invalidity based upon a prior art or combination of prior art.”

Solutran filed a related motion in limine, arguing that Bancorp was estopped from introducing the Randle ’717 reference due to its similarity to the Randle ’283 reference from the failed CBM review.  In opposition, Bancorp argued that estoppel bars obviousness arguments based only  on the same set of limitations from the same combination of prior art.  Finding merit in Solutran’s argument, Judge Nelson stated that, if “Randle ’717 does not provide any new disclosures or features that Defendants could not have argued from Randle ’283, then it will be estopped.”  The court deferred the issue and invited Bancorp to attempt to distinguish Randle ’717 from Randle ’283.

Thus, according to the order, parties cannot avoid CBM estoppel by simply relying on related prior art with the same disclosure as that asserted before the PTAB; rather, the prior art asserted in district court must disclose limitations that were not disclosed in the related prior art asserted at the PTAB.

Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:13-cv-02637-SRN-BRT (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2018)

Share This Insight

Categories

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.