Federal Circuit applies collateral estoppel where prior IPR previously construed related claim

Federal Circuit applies collateral estoppel where prior IPR previously construed related claimNestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., No. 2017-1193, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018) (Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes, J.) (Opinion for the court, Hughes, J.)

During an inter partes review of the ‘468 patent, owned by Steuben and directed to systems of aseptic packaging of food products, the Board found claim 9 was not obvious. Nestle appealed, arguing that the Board erred by applying an erroneous construction of the terms “aseptic” and “aseptically disinfecting.” Because Nestle previously appealed the Board’s construction of “aseptic” in a separate inter partes review of the ’013 patent, also owned by Steuben, and related to the ‘468 patent, collateral estopped attached to this case.

Collateral estoppel is not limited to identical patent claims. Instead, the identity of the litigated issues determines whether collateral estoppel applies. Here, the term “aseptic” was at issue in both cases. Furthermore, the two patents provided identical lexicography for the term “aseptic” in their specifications. There were no material differences between the two patents or their prosecution histories that would give rise to different claim construction issues.  Both patents claimed priority to the same provisional application and shared substantially similar descriptions of the claimed inventions. The issue of claim construction was fully and fairly litigated during the prior appeal and collateral estoppel applied.

The Federal Circuit thus vacated the Board’s claim construction as erroneous, construed aseptic to mean the “FDA level of aseptic,” as previously decided, vacated the Board’s non-obviousness determination, and remanded for further proceedings.

Take Away

Collateral estoppel is not limited to identical patent claims or claims within a single patent and may preclude a contradictory construction of a claim term already construed in an inter pates review of a related patent, particularly when both patents provide “identical lexicography” for the disputed term.



The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.