MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC
Decision Date | 25 January 2018 |
Docket Number | 2017-1039 |
Citation | 880 F.3d 1373 |
Parties | MAXLINEAR, INC., Appellant v. CF CRESPE LLC, Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Gregory Schodde, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Ronald Spuhler.
Craig Robert Smith, Lando & Anastasi, LLP, Cambridge, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Eric P. Carnevale.
Before Dyk, Schall, and Reyna, Circuit Judges.
Appellant MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear") appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") in an inter partes review ("IPR"). The Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,075,585 ("the '585 patent") owned by appellee CF CRESPE LLC ("CRESPE"). MaxLinear seeks review of the Board's decision with respect to dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 20-21.
The Board based its decision on an analysis of independent claims 1 and 17. However, in a separate IPR, No. IPR2014-00728 ("the '728 IPR"), claims 1 and 17 were held to be unpatentable, and that decision was affirmed by our court during the pendency of this appeal. CF CRESPE LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc. (CRESPE I ), 670 Fed.Appx. 707, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Because the Board did not address arguments concerning patentability of the dependent claims separately from the now-unpatentable independent claims, we vacate the decision and remand to the Board, with instructions to consider the patentability of the dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21, in light of our decision holding claims 1 and 17 unpatentable.
The '585 patent"relates to a broadband television signal receiver for receiving multi-standard analog television signals, digital television signals and data channels." '585 patent, col. 1 ll. 15-19. A television receiver converts a radio frequency ("RF") signal from the broadcast frequency, filters out interfering signals, and then demodulates or decodes the signal of interest. In layman's terms, the television signal receiver takes incoming television broadcast signals and processes the signal into a viewable medium for eventual display.
This appeal concerns the final written decision of the Board issued on August 11, 2016. This proceeding commenced on January 28, 2015, when MaxLinear petitioned for an inter partes review of claims 1-21 of the '585 patent. The Board instituted review of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 16-21 based on the prior art combination of Van De Plassche ("VDP") with Ishikawa and other references. MaxLinear, Inc., v. Cresta Tech. Corp. , No. IPR2015-00592, 2016 WL 8946032, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016) (the " '592 IPR").1 In the final written decision, the Board held that the challenged claims were not shown to be unpatentable over the prior art. Id . at *12.
Claims 1 and 17 are the only independent claims in the patent, with claim 1 conveying the television receiver and claim 17 being the associated method claim. The Board limited its analysis to the independent claims and did not separately analyze the dependent claims. The Board declined to find claims 1 and 17 unpatentable over a combination of VDP and Ishikawa. Id . at *12.
The Board based its finding of nonobviousness entirely on the analysis of claims 1 and 17. The Board held that Id. at *12. The Board never mentioned any separate arguments concerning the dependent claims' patentability. See id. The entire analysis and decision rests on the finding that independent claims 1 and 17 were patentable over the prior art. See id . at *1-12.
MaxLinear appealed the Board's decision. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 319.
Two other IPRs had been instituted concerning the '585 patent.2 Each of these IPRs had the same Board members as in the '592 IPR but considered different prior art. In the '728 IPR, on October 21, 2015, the Board issued a final written decision that claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 16-19 of the '585 patent were unpatentable over the Thomson reference, No. EP0696854, both alone and in combination with other references. 2015 WL 6441485, at *6-13. Cresta, the original owner of the '585 patent and CRESPE's predecessor, appealed. While the present case was pending on appeal, we affirmed the Board's decision in the '728 IPR. CRESPE I , 670 Fed.Appx. at 708. The result of this affirmation is that independent claims 1 and 17 of the '585 patent are now unpatentable. In the final decision in the '615 IPR, issued on the same day as the '592 IPR, the Board, among other things, held claim 20 of the '585 patent unpatentable over Thomson in combination with other references. 2016 WL 8969202, at *21-22. CRESPE appealed. Subsequently, we affirmed the Board, so that claim 20 of the '585 patent now stands unpatentable. CF CRESPE LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc. (CRESPE II ), 705 Fed.Appx. 1000, 1001 (Fed. Cir.2017) (per curiam).
In the '728 and '615 IPRs, the Board held that claims 1, 17, and 20, involved in this proceeding, were unpatentable. Those decisions have subsequently been affirmed by this court. Both parties agree that those prior decisions, having been affirmed by our court, are binding in this proceeding, as a matter of collateral estoppel, and they could hardly argue otherwise.
It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context. See B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1293, 1303, 191 L.Ed.2d 222 (2015). The Supreme Court has held:
[It is] clear that issue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts . Rather, where a single issue is before a court and an administrative agency, preclusion also often applies. Indeed, this Court has explained that because the principle of issue preclusion was so "well established" at common law, in those situations in which Congress has authorized agencies to resolve disputes, "courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with the expectation that the principle [of issue preclusion] will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident."
Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino , 501 U.S. 104, 108, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991) ); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83(1) (Am. Law Inst. 1982) ("a valid and final adjudicative determination by an administrative tribunal has the same effects under the rules of res judicata, subject to the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of a court") that, while there are limits, . B & B Hardware is particularly relevant here, as the Court held that "issue preclusion should apply" to the final written decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"). 135 S.Ct. at 1310. The TTAB, at issue in B & B Hardware , and the Board, in this case, are indistinguishable for preclusion purposes. Indeed, in SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. Deca International Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016), we reiterated that "administrative decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can ground issue preclusion...." See also Gould v. Mossinghoff , 711 F.2d 396, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (). Furthermore, "[i]t is undisputed that as a result of collateral estoppel, a judgment of invalidity in one patent action renders the patent invalid in any later actions based on the same patent." Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co. , 252 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found. , 402 U.S. 313, 349-50, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971) ), vacated on other grounds , 535 U.S. 1109, 122 S.Ct. 2324, 153 L.Ed.2d 153 (2002).
The fact that the '728 IPR became final while this case was pending on appeal is irrelevant, as "issue preclusion applies even though the precluding judgment ... comes into existence while the case as to which preclusion is sought (this case) is on appeal." Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC , 778 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; see also Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1577-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ( ); Dana Corp. v. NOK, Inc. , 882 F.2d 505, 507-08 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (same). That MaxLinear was not a party to the other IPRs is similarly irrelevant since Cresta, the predecessor in interest to CRESPE, was party to the original determination. See Blonder-Tongue , 402 U.S. at 349-50, 91 S.Ct. 1434.
The preclusive effect of the prior adjudications, and subsequent affirmations, has finally resolved the issue of the unpatentability of independent claims 1 and 17 and dependent claim 20 in this proceeding. Thus, the sole remaining question at issue is whether the dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21, not addressed in the earlier IPRs, are unpatentable.
The Board's decision as to the patentability of the dependent claims in the 592 IPR, 2016 WL 8946032, at *12. However, the holding of unpatentability of claims 1 and 17 in the '728 IPR, and the affirmance by our court, abrogates the basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.
..."It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context." MaxLinear, Inc. , 880 F.3d at 1376. In fact, "because the principle of issue preclusion was so ‘well established’ at common law, in those situations in which Congress ha......
-
Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.
...situation should it arise. Cf. XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics , 890 F.3d 1282, 1294-95 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC , 880 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2018).Accordingly, defendants will be estopped from arguing that claims 4, 9, 18, and 25 are invalid for (1) anticipa......
-
PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc.
...the Court has discretion to treat the allegedly representative claim as representative. Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1365 ; accord MaxLinear , 880 F.3d at 1377. By contrast, if the plaintiff identifies legally distinctive limitations, then any claims which contain those limitations are excluded......
-
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Lsi Corp.
...See B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 1293, 191 L.Ed.2d 222 (2015) ; MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC , 880 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC , 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the absence of such a provision, the resu......
-
The Many Flavors Of Inter Partes Review Estoppel: A Review And Update
...Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1312, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 93. Maxlinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 94. Id. at 1377. 95. Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int'l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Papst Licensing ......
-
Rigidly Interpreting Precedents May Foreclose An Equitable Doctrine
...The Federal Circuit has already said that collateral estoppel may apply to the Board's decisions. See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also, Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And Federal Circuit "precede......
-
Rigidly Interpreting Precedents May Foreclose an Equitable Doctrine
...The Federal Circuit has already said that collateral estoppel may apply to the Board’s decisions. See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also, Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And Federal Circuit “precede......
-
An Unacceptable Threat to Startups and Innovators from Our Patent System
...disposes of an IPR in the form of an adverse judgment is a decision and provides a right to appeal. MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC , 880 F.3d 1373, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The petitioner in a first IPR proceeding appealed the PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of ce......
-
An Interview with Rob Law
...disposes of an IPR in the form of an adverse judgment is a decision and provides a right to appeal. MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC , 880 F.3d 1373, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The petitioner in a first IPR proceeding appealed the PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of ce......
-
Starting Up Right: Common Pitfalls Startups Can Avoid in Copyright Law
...disposes of an IPR in the form of an adverse judgment is a decision and provides a right to appeal. MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC , 880 F.3d 1373, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The petitioner in a first IPR proceeding appealed the PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of ce......
-
Chapter §15.08 Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Claim Interpretation Decisions
...884 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018) (Hughes, J.).[556] Nestle USA, 884 F.3d at 1351 (citing Maxlinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Maxlinear in turn cited the Supreme Court's trademark law decision, B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., ___ U.S. __......