Can a petitioner's reply in an IPR proceeding present new arguments and evidence responding to a proposed claim construction first raised in the patent owner's response? In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
VLSI argued that the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Astoria Federal sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino applies only when an agency decision precludes a later court decision and, therefore, common-law claim preclusion would apply to the IPR proceeding
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the substance of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO).
In early February 2023, the Patent Office's Director designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624.
Last year, a district court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to dismiss an infringement suit after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decided to cancel the asserted patent's claims in an inter partes review.