United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NESTLE USA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

STEUBEN FOODS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1193

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-

00249.

______________________ 

Decided: March 13, 2018

______________________ 

 VIRGINIA L. CARRON, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by KEVIN D. RODKEY; TYLER 

MICHAEL AKAGI, THOMAS H. JENKINS, Washington, DC. 

 THOMAS FISHER, Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by W. COOK ALCIATI, CHARLIE AVIGLIANO, 

Steuben Foods, Inc., Jamaica, NY.

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
2 NESTLE USA, INC. v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC. 

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Nestlé USA, Inc. appeals from the final decision of the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, 

finding claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,481,468 B1 not obvious. The patent is owned by Steuben Foods, Inc. and 

directed to systems for aseptic packaging of food products. 

Nestlé argues that the Board erred by applying an erroneous construction of the related terms “aseptic” and 

“aseptically disinfecting.” Because collateral estoppel 

attaches to the issue, we vacate the Board’s construction 

and remand for further proceedings. 

Nestlé previously appealed the Board’s construction of 

“aseptic” in a separate inter partes review involving 

claims 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013 B2, another 

patent owned by Steuben Foods and related to the ’468 

patent.1 See Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 686 

F. App’x 917, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We vacated the 

Board’s construction, relying on binding lexicography in 

the specification for “aseptic” to construe the term to 

mean the “FDA level of aseptic.” Id. at 919. Nestlé now 

raises arguments against the Board’s construction of 

“aseptic” similar to those raised in the prior appeal involving the ’013 patent. 

1 Both patents claim priority to the same provisional application as well as share substantially similar 

descriptions of the claimed inventions. Compare ’468 

patent, col. 2 ll. 37–40 (“[T]he present invention provides 

an apparatus and method for providing container product 

filling in an aseptic processing apparatus.”), with ’013 

patent, col. 2 ll. 5–9 (“[T]he present invention provides a 

method and apparatus for providing aseptically processed 

low acid products in a container having a small opening, 

such as a glass or plastic bottle or jar, at a high output 

processing speed.”). 

 
NESTLE USA, INC. v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC. 3

“Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to 

litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a 

previous action and adversely resolved against a partyopponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 

F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We apply our precedent 

on collateral estoppel when claim construction is involved. 

Id. “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also 

known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative 

context.” Maxlinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 

1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

It is undisputed that the claims at issue in the two 

appeals use the term “aseptic” (or its related variation 

“aseptically disinfecting”) in a similar fashion. Compare 

’468 patent, col. 26 l. 20 (claim 9 referring to “aseptically 

disinfecting a plurality of bottles”), col. 25 l. 61 (claim 1, 

from which claim 9 depends, referring to “an aseptic 

product”), with ’013 patent, col. 16 ll. 36–62 (referring to 

“aseptically disinfecting the bottles,” “aseptically filling 

the bottles with aseptically sterilized foodstuffs,” and 

“aseptically disinfected plurality of bottles”). More critically, the two patents also provide identical lexicography 

for the term “aseptic” in their specifications. Compare 

’468 patent, col. 2 ll. 32–35 (“In the following description 

of the present invention, the term ‘aseptic’ denotes the 

United States FDA level of aseptic.”), with ’013 patent, 

col. 1 l. 67–col. 2 l. 2 (same); compare ’468 patent, col. 5 ll. 

45–46 (“Hereafter, ‘aseptic’ will refer to the FDA level of 

aseptic.”), with ’013 patent, col. 4 ll. 28–29 (same). Neither party has pointed to any material difference between 

the two patents or their prosecution histories that would 

give rise to claim construction issues in this appeal different from those raised in the prior appeal. Accordingly, 

Steuben Foods has had a full and fair opportunity to 

litigate the issue of claim construction during the prior 

appeal.

It follows, therefore, that collateral estoppel protects 

Nestlé and obviates the need to revisit an issue that was 
4 NESTLE USA, INC. v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC. 

already resolved against Steuben Foods. Importantly, our 

precedent makes clear that collateral estoppel is not 

limited “to patent claims that are identical. Rather, it is 

the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio 

Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342; see also Maxlinear, 880 

F.3d at 1377. 

Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s construction as erroneous and construe aseptic to mean the “FDA level of 

aseptic,” as detailed in our prior opinion. See also Omega 

Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir.

2003) (noting that the same construed meaning should 

generally attach to the same claim term in related patents). Because the Board erred in its construction, we 

also vacate its nonobviousness determination and remand 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED-AND-REMANDED