'Reverse-Engineered' Search String Insufficient to Establish PGR Estoppel

February 16, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

Southern District of New York Judge Colleen McMahon recently denied a plaintiff’s request to apply post-grant review (PGR) estoppel to two prior art references asserted by the defendant. In doing so, Judge McMahon explained that presenting search strings that identify the prior art is insufficient on its own to establish that the prior art “reasonably could have [been] raised” in the PGR.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2), if a patent claim survives a final written decision in PGR proceedings, the PGR petitioner may not assert in district court “that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review.”

In GeigTech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.—a patent infringement suit involving window shade brackets—GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped from asserting the “Kirsch” and “Cid Quintas” prior art patents because Lutron “reasonably could have raised” them in its PGR petition against the patent-in-suit. To support its position, GeigTech identified “search strings” that turned up the two references in Google Patents. Lutron countered that search strings alone are insufficient to establish what it “reasonably could have raised” in the PGR.

Before siding with Lutron, the court first grappled with the meaning and scope of “reasonably could have raised” under § 325(e)(2). According to the Federal Circuit, “reasonably could have raised” includes references “that a petitioner actually knew about or that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.” But “the Federal Circuit has not refined exactly what facts or circumstances qualify as ‘a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search.’” Judge McMahon therefore looked to other district courts, which have concluded that the movant must satisfy two prongs to meet the Federal Circuit’s “skilled searcher” standard:

(1) identify the search string and search source that would identify the allegedly unavailable prior art; and

(2) present evidence, likely expert testimony, why such a criterion would be part of a skilled searcher’s diligent search.

The court declined to apply PGR estoppel to the Kirsch and Cid Quintas patents because GeigTech failed to satisfy the second prong of this test. As Judge McMahon explained, “GeigTech’s ‘evidence’ consists solely of the search strings that were selectively assembled by its own attorneys to bolster ex post facto arguments.” In other words, “GeigTech essentially ‘reverse engineered’ its search terms” by looking at terms in the identified prior art references. On these facts, “one cannot infer that a skilled researcher would have found the [prior art].”

Practice Tip: To establish PGR estoppel under § 325(e)(2)—and IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2)—practitioners should consider presenting actual evidence, such as expert testimony, showing that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover the prior art. Showing that the prior art could have been found with a search string—particularly when the search string is “reverse engineered” from the prior artis not sufficient.

GeigTech Easy Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., slip op., No. 18 Civ. 05290 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 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.