IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Patents
Subscribe to Patents's Posts

Surprise? Last-minute new theory leads to new trial

by | Sep 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial after the defendant introduced a new noninfringement theory on the eve of trial based on test results it previously refused to produce, saying they were not necessary. Magēmā Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP, Case No. 2024-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Moore, Stoll, Bumb, JJ.)

Magēmā owns a patent directed to a solution to desulfurize fuel used to power cargo ships. Magēmā entered into licensing discussions with Phillips, but after the parties failed to reach an agreement, Phillips modified its hydrotreater reactors to implement what Magēmā believed was an infringing desulfurization process. Magēmā sued.

The governing fuel standard required a flashpoint of at least 140 degrees, meaning fuel with a pre-hydroprocessing flashpoint below that threshold would not infringe. The parties disagreed on where at the refinery the flashpoint should be tested. Phillips provided data from one sampling point while Magēmā requested data from a location closer to the hydrotreater reactor. Phillips refused, citing safety concerns, and argued that Magēmā could estimate the flashpoint using an accepted formula. The district court denied Magēmā’s motion to compel, agreeing that the formula sufficed. However, after discovery closed, Phillips moved to supplement the summary judgment record with new flashpoint test results from a different sampling station. The district court denied the motion, finding Phillips had no reasonable explanation for failing to sample earlier, and that introducing the evidence late would be unduly prejudicial, especially since Phillips had previously said Magēmā could rely on the formula. Yet shortly before jury selection, Magēmā learned that Phillips intended to argue that the formula was inadequate and that only actual testing could prove infringement (evidence Magēmā lacked), effectively shifting the burden. Magēmā objected, but the district court overruled the objection.

At trial, Philips told the jury that the standard required actual flashpoint testing and that Magēmā could not prove infringement without test samples. Magēmā requested a curative instruction, which the district court denied. The district court also barred Magēmā from explaining why it had relied on a formula rather than actual testing data. The jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. Although the district court acknowledged that Phillips’ arguments were “improper and prejudicial,” it denied Magēmā’s motion for a new trial, finding that the misconduct did not affect the outcome. Magēmā appealed.

Phillips argued that Magēmā had failed to timely object, but the Federal Circuit disagreed, citing to Magēmā’s pre-jury selection objection, request for a curative instruction, and motion for a new trial. Finding that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial, the Federal Circuit agreed that Phillips’ argument was “improper and prejudicial,” characterizing it as a “bait-and-switch.”

Because the jury returned a general verdict form, the Federal Circuit could not determine the basis for the noninfringement finding and, given the repeated emphasis Phillips placed on its improper argument, the Court concluded it would be unjust to let the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Prevailing party: Dismissal with prejudice will do it

by | Sep 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court erred in denying fees and costs to the prevailing party (here, the defendant), but upheld the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Future Link Sys., LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Case Nos. 23-1056; -1057 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Stoll, Reyna, Bryson, JJ.)

Future Link sued Realtek for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. Realtek challenged service and personal jurisdiction and subsequently moved for Rule 11 sanctions. During discovery, Future Link produced a licensing agreement with a third party, under which the third party had agreed to pay a lump sum if Future Link sued Realtek. Shortly afterward, Future Link entered into a separate licensing agreement with Realtek covering the accused products and voluntarily dismissed the case.

Realtek moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and costs under Rule 54(d)(1), and asserted that Future Link had filed objectively baseless lawsuits. The district court denied Realtek’s motions for fees and sanctions, did not address the motion for costs, and converted Future Link’s voluntary dismissal to a dismissal with prejudice.

Fees and costs

To seek fees and costs, a party must qualify as “the prevailing party.” In reviewing the district court’s decision on fees and costs, the Federal Circuit addressed Realtek’s prevailing party status under both § 285 and Rule 54(d).

Applying de novo review, the Federal Circuit concluded that Realtek was the prevailing party, despite the voluntary dismissal, because the district court had converted that dismissal to one with prejudice. The Federal Circuit emphasized that prevailing party analysis turns on whether there has been a material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties. Citing its own precedent, the Court explained that a dismissal with prejudice constitutes such a change because it bars the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims against the same products.
The Court explained that a favorable ruling on the merits is not required. A defendant that successfully avoids liability, such as through dismissal with prejudice, can still be deemed the prevailing party.

Since the dismissal with prejudice prevented Future Link from reasserting its patent claims against the accused products, Realtek was the prevailing party. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285 and remanded the issue for consideration of whether the case was exceptional and fees were warranted. It likewise remanded the Rule 54(d) costs issue for initial determination.

Rule 11 sanctions

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. Realtek had argued that Future Link’s prefiling investigation was inadequate and that the lawsuit was improperly motivated by a third-party payment arrangement, making that arrangement the but-for cause of the lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. First, it found that Future Link’s pre-suit investigation met Rule 11 standards: Future Link obtained and analyzed three accused products, prepared claim charts comparing asserted patent claims to the accused products, and investigated relevant optional features that it reasonably believed [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Claims barred by laches: Prosecution delay doesn’t pay, nor does skipping evidence of concrete injury

by | Sep 11, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment for the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) on application of prosecution laches in an action under 35 USC § 145. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over certain claims because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of concrete injury when challenged after initial pleadings. Hyatt v. Stewart, Case Nos. 2018-2390; -2391; -2392; 2019-1049; -1038; -1039; -1070; 2024-1992; -1993; -1994; -1995 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.) (precedential).

Gilbert Hyatt filed four GATT bubble patent applications, all of which had claims rejected by the examiner. Hyatt appealed those rejections to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, which affirmed various rejections of others. Following the Board decisions, Hyatt filed four separate actions in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the PTO rejections. In response, the PTO asserted prosecution laches as an affirmative defense and, in the alternative, invalidity, based on anticipation and lack of written description.

The district court initially ruled in Hyatt’s favor, finding that the PTO’s affirmative defenses failed with respect to the claims for which the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection. The district court concluded that it lacked Article III jurisdiction over the remaining claims (those for which the Board reversed the examiner) because there was no final agency action as to those claims.

The PTO appealed, arguing that prosecution laches barred all of the claims or, in the alternative, that the claims were invalid. Hyatt cross-appealed, contending that prosecution laches did not apply in § 145 actions or that the district court abused its discretion in applying laches in these specific § 145 actions.

In an earlier appeal, Hyatt I, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on prosecution laches, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard for prosecution laches and had the burden of proving that Hyatt engaged in unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecuting his applications and that the delay was prejudicial. The panel remanded the case held the issue of Article III jurisdiction in abeyance. On remand, the district court reversed course and found in favor of the PTO on prosecution laches, concluding that Hyatt had unreasonably delayed prosecution in a manner that prejudiced the agency.

Hyatt appealed. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals with the earlier stayed jurisdictional issues. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of prosecution laches, finding no clear error in its determination that Hyatt’s conduct met the standard for delay and prejudice. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over claims that had not been finally rejected by the PTO, reinforcing that § 145 actions may only proceed where there is a final agency determination resulting in a justiciable controversy.

On the issue of prosecution laches, the Federal Circuit explained that it had already considered and rejected Hyatt’s argument that prosecution laches is unavailable in a § 145 action in Hyatt I, and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Derivation proceedings highlight race to file under AIA

by | Sep 11, 2025 | ,

In one of the first decisions regarding derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that an application earlier filer had not derived his claimed invention from a later-filing petitioner. Global Health Solutions, LLC v. Marc Selner, Case No. 2023-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Stoll, Stark, JJ.) (Goldberg, J., sitting by designation).

Global Health Solutions (GHS) and Marc Selner filed patent applications governed by the AIA and covering similar subject matter. Selner filed his application first. GHS filed a petition to institute derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 135, alleging that Selner’s patent claims were derived from Burnam, the single inventor on the GHS application.

During Board proceedings, the parties submitted evidence regarding the timing of their respective conceptions of the claimed inventions, including several email communications. Based on Selner’s evidence, the Board determined that he could not have derived the claimed invention from Burnam. The Board also rejected GHS’s argument that actual reduction to practice was necessary to complete conception of the claimed invention. GHS appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that while pre-AIA patent interference proceedings required a party alleging derivation to establish prior conception and communication of the invention to the opposing party, the AIA does not expressly define the evidentiary requirements for derivation petitions. Nevertheless, the Court, borrowing from its interference jurisprudence, reasoned that an AIA derivation proceeding similarly requires a showing of both conception and communication of the claimed invention. The Court emphasized, however, that standards articulated in case law from pre-AIA interference proceedings must be applied with caution and considered in light of the AIA’s distinct statutory framework.

The Federal Circuit determined that although the Board focused on which party had proof of the earliest conception (typically the dispositive issue in interference proceedings), it was harmless error. Under the AIA first-to-file framework, determination of the first to invent is not dispositive. The Court noted that because Selner was first to file, he only needed to show that his conception was independent of Burnam’s. Here, Selner’s proof of earlier conception was also proof of conception independent of Burnam, the Court noted.

The Federal Circuit also determined that the Board did not err in rejecting GHS’s argument that Selner failed to demonstrate invention in the absence of evidence of actual reduction to practice. The Court found that the Board appropriately addressed whether such a requirement (often applied in interference proceedings to complicated, unpredictable technology) applied to the invention at issue. The Court explained that Selner’s conception was complete either when he could define the invention by its method of preparation or when he had formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Selner’s earlier email communication to Burnam supported the finding that Selner had reached the requisite understanding to establish complete conception without the need for actual reduction to practice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in favor of Selner, finding no derivation.

Practice note: [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Feel the burn: Mechanical improvement is patent eligible under § 101

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., Case No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi, JJ.)

PowerBlock sued iFit for allegedly infringing its patent related to dumbbells. IFit moved to dismiss the claims under § 101. The district court found that the challenged claim was broadly directed to the idea of automated weight stacking, and that it purported to cover any system having a few basic components for selecting and adjusting weights, rather than describing a specific method or design for how the system actually worked. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent eligibility, the district court determined that all but one claim of the asserted patent were ineligible under § 101. PowerBlock appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in its Alice step one analysis under § 101. The Court explained that the crux of the district court’s incorrect determination was that the challenged claim was directed to the abstract idea of automated weight stacking, which in turn led to misplaced preemption concerns. The Court found instead that the claim was limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement – namely, a particular type of selectorized dumbbell featuring nested left and right weight plates, a handle, a movable selector, and an electric motor operatively connected to the selector that adjusts the weight based on user input.

Distinguishing the challenged claim from prior cases in which claims were found ineligible, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the claim was directed to an “eligible mechanical invention” and “focused on a specific mechanical improvement,” not merely an abstract or generalized concept. The Court also rejected iFit’s argument that limitations should be discounted simply because they appear in the prior art. The Court reiterated that it is inappropriate to dissect claims into old and new elements and then ignore the old when assessing eligibility under § 101. Rather, under Alice, the “step one inquiry involves consideration of the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” The Court cautioned against conflating the patent eligibility inquiry under § 101 with the separate questions of novelty and nonobviousness under §§ 102 and 103.



read more

Identical or not? Jury can’t decide issues of claim construction

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement, finding that the jury’s infringement findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the district court had improperly delegated claim construction to the jury. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Case No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (LabCorp) holds two patents with substantially overlapping specifications, both generally directed to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing and enrichment techniques aimed at enabling whole-genome sequencing. LabCorp initiated litigation alleging that various Qiagen Sciences kits containing materials used in DNA sample preparation for sequencing infringed its patents. During claim construction, the district court construed several patent terms as follows:

  • In the first patent, “second target-specific primer” means a single-stranded oligonucleotide with a 3’ portion that specifically anneals to a portion of the known target nucleotide sequence in the amplicon from step (b), and a 5’ portion identical to a second sequencing primer.
  • Also in the first patent, “second adaptor primer” refers to a nucleic acid molecule containing a sequence identical to part of the first sequencing primer and nested relative to the first adaptor primer.
  • In the second patent, “target-specific primer” is defined as a primer sufficiently complementary to the target to enable selective annealing and amplification, without amplifying non-target sequences in the sample.

The jury found that Qiagen infringed the first patent under the doctrine of equivalents and willfully and literally infringed the second patent. The jury awarded damages accordingly. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for JMOL to reverse the damages and the jury’s findings of infringement and validity, and its alternative request for a new trial. Qiagen appealed.

Qiagen raised two noninfringement arguments regarding the first patent, and the Federal Circuit agreed with both. First, the Court held that it was error to allow the jury to apply “plain meaning” and equate a sequence being “identical to another” with being “identical to a portion” of another. Specifically, Qiagen’s accused second target-specific primer (Sample Index Primer, or SIP) was 19 nucleotides long while the second sequencing primer (Read2 primer) was 34 nucleotides. The fact that they shared an overlapping sequence did not make them identical.

Although the district court had treated “identical” as a factual issue for the jury, the Federal Circuit, citing its 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech., found that this was a claim construction matter that should not have been left to the jury. The term “identical” must be given its full meaning under claim construction and cannot be interpreted as “identical to a portion.” The Court emphasized that the specification and claims distinguished between full and partial identity: The second target-specific primer must be “identical to” the second sequencing primer while the adaptor primer need only be “identical to a portion” of the first sequencing primer. This difference [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to adequately support the full scope of the asserted claims (35 U.S.C. § 112). Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Case Nos. 23-2117; -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) (Taranto, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Mondis sued LG for alleged infringement of a patent related to computer display technology. During prosecution, Mondis amended the claims to overcome prior art, changing a limitation from identifying a particular display unit to identifying a type of display unit (the type limitation). A jury found in favor of Mondis and awarded $45 million in damages. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the patent was invalid due to a lack of written description supporting the type limitation. The district court denied the motion but granted a retrial on damages. The second jury awarded more than $14 million. LG appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied regional law standard (here, Third Circuit law) to review the district court’s denial of JMOL (i.e., assessing whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict). In evaluating patent validity under the written description requirement of § 112, the Court focused on whether the specification sufficiently demonstrated that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, including any amendments made during prosecution.

The Federal Circuit examined whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of validity and concluded that LG did not need extrinsic evidence to challenge the patent’s validity but properly relied on the specification. The Court found that Mondis’ attempt to piece together fragments of testimony (primarily related to infringement) to argue for implicit support in the specification was insufficient because the specification’s plain language supported only the original unamended claim limitation, not the amended type limitation.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that both parties presented expert testimony at trial. However, the Court found that even Mondis’ expert testimony, when considered alongside the specification’s plain meaning, failed to provide adequate support for the jury’s finding. While a jury may infer implicit support, Mondis did not present enough particularized testimony to justify such an inference.

Mondis also argued that the examiner’s allowance of the amended claim indicated sufficient support in the specification, and that the presumption of validity of an issued patent supported its position. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the examiner’s focus was on overcoming prior art, not on evaluating written descriptions. Accepting Mondis’ position would effectively shield most patents from later invalidation, a result the Court deemed impractical.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description.



read more

Use of general knowledge in IPR petitions will no longer work

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

On July 31, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memo clarifying the requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) for inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The memo emphasizes that petitioners must clearly identify where each element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.

Historically, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board permitted petitioners to rely on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other forms of general knowledge to fill in missing claim limitations. However, the new guidance states that such general knowledge, including AAPA, can no longer be used to supply missing claim elements. If an IPR petition relies on general knowledge to bridge gaps in the prior art, the Board will now deny institution.

The memo clarifies that § 104(b)(4) does not limit the use of general knowledge to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, § 104(b)(4) may be narrower than 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Just weeks before the memo was issued, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shockwave Medical. v. Cardiovascular Systems held that AAPA can be used to supply missing claim limitations without violating § 311(b), highlighting a potential tension between the rule and judicial interpretation.

The PTO’s new requirements will apply to all IPR petitions filed on or after September 1, 2025.

Practice note: To meet the threshold for institution, IPR petitioners should ensure that each claim element is explicitly mapped to prior art patents or printed publications. Reliance on general knowledge to fill in missing elements will no longer be sufficient.



read more

Claim construction misstep undoes injunction

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a preliminary injunction (PI), finding that the district court improperly construed a claim term based on references cited in a provisional application but omitted from the asserted patents. FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, Case No. 224-2335 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) (Moore, Chen, Barnett, JJ.)

FMC owns two patents claiming priority to a provisional application concerning insecticides and miticides compositions. The patents specifically cover formulations comprising bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid. Sharda currently markets an insecticide product known as Winner, which contains both bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid.

FMC sued Sharda for patent infringement on its two patents and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a PI. The district court denied both motions but issued a claim construction for the term “composition.” Instead of applying the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, the district court interpreted “composition” narrowly to mean “stable compositions, rather than the well-known unstable compositions that produce ineffective results as discussed throughout the prosecution history.” In reaching this construction, the district court relied on statements made in the provisional application and disclosures found in a separate, non-asserted FMC patent that claimed priority to the same provisional application. However, these disclosures were absent from the asserted patents themselves, appearing only in the provisional application and the non-asserted patent.

FMC renewed its motion for a TRO, which the district court granted and later converted into a PI. In issuing the PI, the district court again relied on its narrow construction of the term “composition” as a key point in rejecting Sharda’s invalidity defenses. Sharda appealed.

Sharda argued that the district court erred in both its construction of “composition” and its determination that Sharda failed to raise a substantial question regarding the patents’ validity. The Federal Circuit first addressed Sharda’s challenge to the district court’s construction of the term “composition,” which had been limited to stable compositions based on disclosures in the provisional application and a non-asserted patent. The Court acknowledged that while the provisional application contained multiple references to “stability,” all such references were deliberately removed from the common specification of the two asserted patents. As a result, the specifications of the asserted patents did not simply carry forward the language of the provisional application but instead reflected a substantive evolution.

Citing its 2024 decision in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, the Federal Circuit emphasized that such omissions are legally significant. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the deliberate removal of all references to stability, would not interpret the term “composition” as limited to stable formulations. Because FMC chose to revise the asserted patents’ written descriptions to exclude any mention of stability, the district court erred in importing a stability limitation from the provisional application and non-asserted patent into the claims. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly grafted a “stability” requirement onto the term “composition.”

The Federal Circuit also found fault with the district court’s [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Collateral estoppel remains inapplicable to unchallenged IPR claims

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply to the assertion of claims from a patent, even when other patentably indistinct claims from that patent have been found unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (per curiam) (Moore, J., concurring) (Dyk, J., dissenting).

Kroy sued Groupon for patent infringement, and Groupon subsequently filed two IPR petitions. The Board ultimately found 21 of the asserted claims unpatentable. Kroy amended its complaint to remove those 21 claims and proceed only with claims that were not at issue in the IPR proceedings. Groupon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Kroy was collaterally estopped from asserting the remaining claims because of the Board’s prior IPR rulings finding other patentably indistinct claims unpatentable. The district court agreed with Groupon, finding that the remaining asserted claims were not materially different from the unpatentable claims in terms of validity and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Kroy appealed.

The Federal Circuit held that a Board determination finding certain patent claims unpatentable under the preponderance of the evidence standard did not collaterally estop Kroy from asserting other unreviewed claims of the same patent in district court litigation against Groupon. Groupon subsequently petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, both of which the Federal Circuit denied per curiam.

Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, concurred in the decision. In her concurring opinion, Judge Moore explained that collateral estoppel does not apply where differing standards of proof exist (namely, the preponderance of evidence standard used by the Board versus the clear and convincing evidence standard applied in district courts) because this difference can materially affect a patent’s validity determination. She emphasized that collateral estoppel should apply consistently in patent cases and cautioned against deviating from the established collateral estoppel standards. Judge Moore also noted that policy concerns are mitigated by the ability to file a second IPR petition, because the Board is likely to grant review where a petition raises a substantially similar question of invalidity.

Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, dissented from the decision. The dissent advocated departing from the traditional burden-of-proof rule applicable in the collateral estoppel context to avoid duplicative litigation regarding patent validity. The dissent argued that the majority opinion conflicted with the Federal Circuit’s 2018 opinion in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, which held that collateral estoppel extends between Board decisions and district court proceedings in pending or co-pending actions. According to the dissent, the majority’s approach permits repeated litigation of the validity of patent claims previously found unpatentable in IPR proceedings affirmed on appeal. The dissent expressed concern that applying collateral estoppel in this manner would enable patentees to evade the preclusive effect of adverse IPR [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES