USPTO Director: Invalidity Judgment by District Court Does Not Foreclose Inter Partes Review

June 5, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

In a sua sponte review, USPTO Director Kathy Vidal continued her refinement of the PTAB’s “discretionary denial” practice. Specifically, the Director vacated the Board’s decision to deny institution in Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp. (IPR2022-01424). In doing so, the Director clarified the PTAB’s statutory authority to institute an IPR and affirmed that the discretionary denial factors set out in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. also apply when an invalidated patent is still on appeal.

In Volvo Penta, an inter partes review petition was filed while the same patent was asserted in a co-pending district court lawsuit. After the petition was filed, the district court held that the sole asserted patent claim was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismissed the case.

While the district court’s decision was on appeal, the Board issued a decision denying IPR institution. The Board gave two reasons for its denial. First, the Board concluded that it did not have statutory authority to institute an IPR on a patent claim held invalid by a district court. In support of its reasoning, the Board pointed to the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, which explained that the Board’s authority to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) “is confined to the review of existing patent claims.” According to the Board, the invalidity judgment means that the invalidated claim was no longer an “existing” patent claim subject to IPR. The Board further relied on Federal Circuit case law holding that the pendency of an appeal does not affect the binding nature of the district court’s judgment.

Second, the Board side-stepped applying the Fintiv discretionary denial factors, reasoning that they are relevant only when there is a co-pending district court litigation. Because judgment had already been entered in the district court litigation, it was no longer co-pending, and the factors—including the time to trial and the likelihood of a stay—no longer applied. Accordingly, the Board did not consider the Fintiv factors. Instead, the Board determined that instituting an IPR would increase the risk of wasting resources and reaching inconsistent decisions, and denied institution.

Director Vidal vacated the Board’s decision, finding both of the Board’s reasons flawed. According to the Director, the Board applied irrelevant collateral estoppel rules that have no bearing on the PTAB’s statutory authority to institute under § 311(b). The invalidated claim remains in force until any appeals are resolved, and so the Board retains the authority to institute under § 311(b) despite the district court judgment. As the Director explained, this is fully consistent with the Patent Office’s other policies, including that it does not issue a certificate of cancellation in reissues, IPRs, or ex parte reexaminations until after all appeals have been exhausted.

Similarly, the Director held that because the district court’s invalidity decision was “non-final,” the patent was still subject to judicial review and the Fintiv factors still applied. Thus, the case was remanded to the Board with instructions to evaluate the case under Fintiv, and to consider whether to terminate any instituted proceedings if the invalidity determination is upheld on appeal.

Practice Tip: Patent Owners and Petitioners should be aware that a district court’s early-case invalidation of an asserted patent claim does not necessarily bar institution of an IPR so long as the appeal is still pending. Under these circumstances, the parties should consider thoroughly addressing the Fintiv factors before the PTAB.

Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., IPR2022-01424, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.