PTAB: Unidirectional Language of AIA Estoppel Dooms Common-Law Claim Preclusion Argument Based on District Court’s Final Judgment of No Invalidity

July 24, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Caitlin E. Olwell, Rubén H. Muñoz, Ange Christiani (Law Clerk)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim preclusion inapplicable as a basis for termination.

Patent Owner moved to terminate an IPR after Petitioner successfully joined the proceeding, which was originally filed by another party. Because Petitioner had unsuccessfully litigated invalidity of the patent in district court, Patent Owner argued that termination was proper on a theory of claim preclusion. The district court had issued a final judgment of no invalidity after Patent Owner and Petitioner had fully and fairly argued their cases. Petitioner’s joinder in the IPR, Patent Owner alleged, was nothing more than a collateral attack on the final judgment. Petitioner responded that common-law claim preclusion does not apply to IPRs due to differing burdens of proof between district court actions and IPRs, and the proceedings lacking the same nucleus of operative facts. 

While the Board ultimately decided in favor of Petitioner, it shored up its analysis on three prongs of support: (1) the opinion of the Court in Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991), (2) the explicit language in the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) and (3) the Congressional intent in passing 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). 

First, the Board found that contrary to Patent Owner’s interpretation, Astoria stood for the premise that the presumption of common-law preclusion exists only as far as “Congress has failed to expressly or impliedly evince any intention on the issue.”

Second, the Board dissected the language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) and found that it exhibits a one-way avenue. According to the Board, Section 315(e) states that following a final written decision, the petitioner in an IPR “may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office,” nor “assert either in a civil action…or in a proceeding before the ITC” a challenge to a claim on a ground petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during the inter partes review.” The Board further noted that the statute is silent on the reverse scenario: a party in a fully-litigated district court action later challenging the same claim on the same grounds in an IPR.

Third, the Board concluded that Congress’ act of passing the AIA, which contained its own specific estoppel provisions, “evinced” the intention that common-law claim preclusion was superseded. The Board determined that existence of different burdens of proof between IPRs and district court actions, the removal of the dual-directional language from the predecessor statute to IPR (inter partes reexamination (35 U.S.C. § 317)) and the need to give effect to § 315—which would become redundant if interpreted to be multi-directional—all evidenced Congress’ intent for IPR estoppel as a unidirectional barricade.

Practice Tip: With its one-way estoppel provision confirmed by at least one PTAB panel, the AIA appears to provide patent challengers a second bite at the apple in an IPR proceeding. After receiving a final judgment in district court, patent challengers who fail to prove invalidity by clear-and-convincing evidence may not be precluded from bringing the same claims and evidence against a patentee under a lower burden of proof, and should consider this avenue as a viable option in their overall litigation strategy.

OpenSky Indus. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 132 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.