PTAB Finds Estoppel In Decision Addressing the Meaning of “Reasonably Could Have Been Raised” in Cases Joined Following Institution of Trial

Jun 22, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

On May 11, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed an IPR petition on claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (“the ’433 patent”), which was later instituted (Case IPR2017-01427). On June 16, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed a second IPR petition and a motion for joinder to an already instituted IPR proceeding challenging claims 1–6 and 8 of the ’433 patent (Case IPR2017-00225). Both parties were joined as petitioners in that proceeding. Subsequently, the PTAB issued a final written decision in Case IPR2017-00225, concluding that claims 1–6, and 8 of the ’433 patent were not shown to be unpatentable. The parties to Case IPR2017-01427—still pending in front of the Board—disputed whether Facebook and WhatsApp were estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from maintaining an IPR on the ’433 patent.

The PTAB began by noting that Facebook and WhatsApp were aware of the grounds asserted in IPR2017-01427 at the time they joined IPR2017-00225. The PTAB then addressed Facebook and WhatsApp’s argument that they should not be estopped following the Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00225 because the trial was already instituted when they joined  and, therefore, they could not have raised the grounds asserted in IPR2017-01427 in that proceeding.  The Board found Facebook and WhatsApp’s argument unpersuasive. The Board stated that the relevant question was whether Facebook and WhatsApp “did raise or reasonably could have raised the asserted grounds when [they] filed the motion to join IPR2017-00225.”  While the Board recognized it would have been difficult to expand the scope of that proceeding in the motion to join, the petitioners had the option of requesting to consolidate the cases. The Board emphasized that, although they were not required to, the “petitioners chose to join IPR2017-00225, knowing the limited scope of the case.” The PTAB therefore dismissed Facebook and WhatsApp from the proceeding with respect to their challenge of claims 1-6 and 8 under § 315(e)(1).

The Board’s dismissal was only a partial one, however, because (i) Facebook and WhatsApp were not estopped from maintaining their challenge to claim 7 of the ’433 patent, which was not included in IPR2017-00225 and (ii) LG had joined Case IPR2017-01427 as a petitioner but was not subject to the estoppel on claims 1–6 and 8. The PTAB held that the “dismissal of Facebook and WhatsApp does not limit LG’s participation in any way” and allowed LG to “assume the role of challenger of all claims.” As to Facebook and WhatsApp’s participation, the PTAB held that they could “not participate in the proceeding to categorically challenge the unpatentability of claim 1, notwithstanding claim 7’s dependence from that claim.”

(Facebook, Inc., v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-01427, Paper No. 30 (PTAB May 29, 2018)).

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.