PTAB’s Claim Construction Not Binding on District Court Despite Affirmance by Federal Circuit of PTAB’s Unpatentability Determination

Jun 12, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

In an inter partes review proceeding challenging the patentability of claims 1 to 11 of the patent, the PTAB construed several claim terms and determined that no claims were unpatentable for anticipation, but ruled those claims unpatentable as obvious. The patent owner appealed the obviousness ruling to the Federal Circuit. On appeal, the IPR petitioner argued—in the alternative—that if the obviousness ruling were reversed, the Federal Circuit should construe the claims differently and find them unpatentable for anticipation. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination, and expressly declined to reach the petitioner’s alternative argument regarding claim construction.

During the pendency of the IPR proceeding, the patent owner asserted the patent in district court litigation against a party unrelated to the IPR petitioner. After the PTAB’s unpatentability rulings on claims 1 to 11, claim 12 was left as the only remaining asserted claim. Claim 12 included limitations that were also present in claims 1 to 11 and at issue in the IPR petitioner’s claim construction dispute. The district court ordered briefing on how the outcome of the IPR proceeding affected the litigation. In response, the accused infringer sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the invalidity of claim 12. The accused infringer argued that by affirming the PTAB’s decision, the Federal Circuit necessarily relied on the PTAB’s constructions, making them binding on the district court and precluding patent owner from arguing otherwise.

The district court denied the request. The court explained that while a Federal Circuit decision on claim construction is a binding issue of law under stare decisis, the Federal Circuit did not actually address or decide any of the claim construction issues. Rather, the Federal Circuit had expressly declined to address any claim construction dispute raised by the IPR petitioner, and had only ruled on the use of general knowledge and the sufficiency of the factual findings underpinning the PTAB’s decision. The district court also ruled that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply because the district court and PTAB had applied different standards of claim construction.

Practice Tip: A party in district court litigation seeking to benefit from stare decisis or collateral estoppel arising from PTAB proceedings and appeals therefrom should be prepared to show that the specific issue was actually litigated in the related proceeding and, if necessary, specifically affirmed on appeal.

In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litig., 18-cv-01885-HSG (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2020) (Gilliam, Jr., J.)

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.