In a June decision, a district court held that the identical issue (not claim) must be present for estoppel to apply. (TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01835-RGA, ECF No. 1571 (D. Del. June 29, 2021)). In TQ Delta, a different, but similar claim was presented in District Court compared to the claim challenged in the IPR. The TQ Delta court held that the asserted claims thus presented different validity issues compared to the claim in the IPR, and thus there was no collateral estoppel. The court noted that the claim upheld in the IPR was a system claim, with both a transmitter and receiver. The claims in litigation were transmitter claims (with some other differences). The court found that the differences in the claims raised different validity issues. For example, the claim held valid in the IPR required combining references to attack validity, since it was a system claim, while the claims in litigation could be attacked without such a combination. If you want to compare them, the claim upheld in the IPR was claim 15 of US Pat. 8,718,158. The two claims in litigation were claim 14 of US Pat. 8,090,008 and claim 14 of US Pat. 8,073,041.
In July, an order was issued denying summary judgment in the Eastern District of Texas (General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. et al, 2-20-cv-00007 (EDTX 2021-07-21, Order) (Robert W. Schroeder, III)). The summary judgment motion argued invalidity of dependent claims based on the prior art in a related IPR and a prior art system that the IPR petitioner was aware of. However, the court pointed out that IPRs are limited to patents and printed publication. The new prior art could not have been raised in the IPR since “prior art systems cannot be raised during IPR proceedings. The court’s reference to “systems” means an actual physical product, as opposed to a printed publication.
Note that physical product evidence can be used in a Post Grant Review (PGR), and thus the scope of estoppel is much broader. This may be one factor in why few PGRs are filed (recently about 86 PGRs per year, compared to 1464 IPRs per year).
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.