New Estoppel Concern For Petitioners Raised In BTG v. Amneal

15 February 2019 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Author(s): Stephen B. Maebius

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to decide a case which may create new estoppel concerns for AIA petitioners under 35 USC § 315(e)(2).   The appeal resulted from a Hatch-Waxman litigation in BTG v. Amneal, in which the lower court found that the patent claims at issue were invalid over the same prior art that was used in a parallel IPR proceeding, which separately led to a PTAB final written decision of unpatentability for those claims (also separately appealed and consolidated with the Hatch-Waxman appeal).  On appeal, the patent owner argued that, immediately upon the PTAB’s rendering of a “final written decision”, § 315(e)(2) thereafter prohibits a petitioner from further asserting unpatentability in parallel litigation on the same grounds that were addressed in the final written decision.  The Federal Circuit invited the USPTO to address whether estoppel should apply in this situation.On Feb. 1, 2019, the USPTO filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit to address these 4 questions:

1. Whether a petitioner is estopped from challenging claims
in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) based on a ground that it
brought in an inter partes review, which resulted in a final written
decision holding the claims unpatentable but which has a pending
request for rehearing.

2. Whether a decision is a “final written decision” under 35
U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) if the period for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. §
42.71(d) has not yet expired.

3. Whether a PTAB decision on the pending requests for
rehearing could moot the estoppel issue.

4. Whether a district court can stay a case pending the
outcome of a request for rehearing of a final written decision and/or
appeal from a final written decision.

According to the USPTO, the answer to question 1 is “yes”, estoppel should apply, even when there is a pending request for rehearing of the PTAB’s final written decision not yet decided.  The USPTO also answered “yes” to question 2, indicating that there is estoppel immediately even if a request for rehearing has not yet been filed.  The USPTO found these answers to be supported by the plain language of the statute and also to be consistent with legislative history.

As for question 3, the USPTO noted that the Federal Circuit has consolidated the parallel appeal of the PTAB final written decision with the appeal of the Hatch-Waxman litigation, so if the court affirms the PTAB, then the question of estoppel is moot because the patent will be finally held invalid.

Lastly, for question 4, the USPTO answered “yes”, the district court can issue a stay.  The USPTO brief further suggests that a stay may also be issued in Hatch-Waxman litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services