Parties May Offer Differing Claim Constructions Before the PTAB and District Court Without Invoking Judicial Estoppel, District Court Finds
July 29, 2021
Authored and Edited by Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Brooke M. Wilner; Samantha Leff*
In a claim construction hearing in Panduit Corp. v. Corning Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00229 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2021), the court denied plaintiff’s request that the defendant be judicially estopped from arguing for a claim construction that differed from the one offered during a related inter partes review.
The defendant had previously asserted a claim construction before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then argued for a different claim construction before the district court. In response, the plaintiff sought to judicially estop the defendant from asserting this differing construction before the district court, claiming that the two positions were factually incompatible. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for judicial estoppel.
The court considered three non-exhaustive elements to determine whether application of judicial estoppel was appropriate:
The parties did not dispute whether the first two elements had been met—the defendant’s claim construction offered to the court was factually incompatible with the construction it offered to the PTAB, and the PTAB had accepted the defendant’s proposed claim construction.
But the court found that plaintiff had not sufficiently shown the third element. Specifically, the court found the plaintiff had failed to show the defendant “engaged in malfeasance, purposefully inequitable conduct, or otherwise intentionally misled” the court or the PTAB when presenting its claim construction positions. The court thus held the defendant was not judicially estopped from arguing for a different claim construction than the one offered during the related inter partes review.
In its opinion, the court emphasized that judicial estoppel is a severe sanction that prevents a party from asserting a position that would normally be available to them. Judicial estoppel is thus reserved for parties who have sought an unfair advantage. Where a party asserts differing claim constructions before differing tribunals, that alone will not necessarily suffice to invoke judicial estoppel.
*Samantha Leff is a Summer Associate at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2021 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.