March 10, 2023
Authored and Edited by Milan Feliciello; Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 17-cv-01405, 2022 WL 17403538 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2022), the Court granted Groupon’s motion to dismiss Kroy IP’s amended complaint based on collateral estoppel.
On October 16, 2017, Kroy IP filed suit against Groupon in the District of Delaware, alleging that Groupon infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“the ’660 patent”), which claims a method and system for providing incentive programs over a computer network. Id. at *2. In its original complaint, Kroy IP asserted 13 “exemplary” claims of the ’660 patent. Id.
In October 2018, Groupon timely filed two inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) challenging 21 total claims of the ’660 patent, the 13 “exemplary” claims and eight additional claims. Id. at *2–*3. A few months after Groupon filed its IPR petitions, Kroy IP filed an amended complaint. Id. at *3. The amended complaint added 22 newly-asserted claims. d. at *3–*4. Few of these 22 newly-asserted claims were included in Groupon’s IPR petitions because the claims were first raised after the IPR filing deadline. Id. at *4. The PTAB invalidated all asserted claims, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision on appeal. Id.
Groupon moved to dismiss Kroy IP’s amended complaint primarily on the grounds that Kroy IP was collaterally estopped from alleging infringement of the 22 newly-asserted claims. Id. at *5, *7.
The Court explained that collateral estoppel resulting from a PTAB Final Written Decision is a form of issue preclusion, which requires that the same issue was previously adjudicated. Id. at *8. However, the claims need not be identical, in fact, “precedent does not limit collateral estoppel to patent claims that are identical.” Id. at *9 (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Rather, if the “differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity,” then collateral estoppel applies. Id.
The Court found that the newly asserted claims contained “superficial differences” from the claims invalidated by the PTAB, and in some instances, were broader than those before the PTAB. Id. at *15–*16. For some claims, Plaintiff’s newly asserted claim was directed to a method, whereas the invalidated claim was directed to a system. Id. at *16. The Court reasoned that the newly asserted method claim was “(1) worded nearly identically to [the invalidated system claim] and (2) makes use of all material elements of [the invalidated claim’s] system in the claimed method.” Id. at *17. The fact that the system claim required a server did not convince the Court that the claim was valid. Id. at *16. Ultimately, in light of the PTAB’s decision invalidating “other (slightly-differently-worded) claims of the same patent,” which did not materially alter the question of invalidity, the Court concluded that the Groupon had demonstrated that Kroy IP was collaterally estopped from asserting infringement of the newly-asserted claims. Id. at *34.
A consideration for future litigants to keep in mind is that “(1) if the PTAB issues a final judgment invalidating a patent claim; and (2) if another claim in that same patent is at issue in a district court litigation; and (3) if any differences between the two claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity regarding the district court claim; then (4) the patentee will be collaterally estopped from litigating the district court claim (assuming the other requirements of the collateral estoppel doctrine are met).” Id. at *9.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.