Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020).

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image Processing’s U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 in IPR2017-00353 and IPR2017-01218. The vacatur and remand was based upon the Federal Circuit’s earlier Arthrex decision, which held that the PTAB judges were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arthrex decision from October 2019 is proving to be quite controversial, and the USPTO is seeking an opportunity to have the doctrine reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue Reading U.S. Government in Search of Arthrex Reversal

General Electric v. United Technologies Corp.

General Electric petitioned for an IPR against a United Technologies patent relating to gas turbine engines. General Electric was unsuccessful against certain claims, and sought to appeal. While there is a statutory right to appeal, the Federal Circuit dismissed General Electric’s appeal for lack of Article III standing. See Gen. Elec. Co . v. United Techs. Corp., 928 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Continue Reading Standing to Appeal

This article was published in February 2020 issue of IP Strategist. Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC.  It is republished here with permission.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to determine just how “final and nonappealable” a decision to institute an inter partes review is. The highest court is primed to render yet another opinion related to patent and administrative law in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., L.P., No. 19-916 (2019) after oral arguments were heard on Dec. 9, 2019.
Continue Reading Do Not Pass Go? U.S. Supreme Court to Review Federal Circuit’s Finding of Justiciability

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC et al., Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir., January 30, 2020).

Google filed an IPR against Philips’ patent relating to a method of forming a media presentation on a client device from multiple related files. Google’s IPR petition presented two grounds of unpatentability (anticipation and obviousness) based upon the SMIL 1.0 reference supported by general knowledge in the art regarding distributed media presentations, referred to as pipelining. The general knowledge in the art was supported an expert declaration and the Hua reference, although Hua was not made part of a combination with SMIL 1.0 by Google.
Continue Reading The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Still Counts

Wasica Finance GmbH et al. v. Schrader Int’l, Inc. et al., C.A. 13-1353-LPS (D. Del. January 14, 2020) (publicly available on January 21, 2020).

Plaintiffs Wasica and Bluearc (collectively “Wasica”) filed an infringement action based on U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 against defendants (collectively “Schrader”). The patent pertained to devices for measuring the air pressure in tires.
Continue Reading IPR Estoppel Strikes Again

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020)

On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on remand a partially-instituted IPR decision with directions to fully institute the IPR on all petitioned grounds. Instead of fully instituting the IPR, the PTAB declined to institute the IPR at all. Petitioner appealed, and the Federal Circuit dismissed.
Continue Reading IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2018-2024, -2025 (Fed. Cir. December 18, 2019)

SRAM owned two patents pertaining to bicycle chainrings, which are toothed disks that engage bicycle chains. Fox filed inter partes reviews (IPR) against the patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that Fox had shown that the SRAM claims were prima facie obvious over the prior art, but secondary consideration existed that allowed SRAM to overcome the obviousness attack. The secondary considerations asserted by SRAM in defense of the patents were commercial success of a product, licensing, copying, praise by others and long-felt but unmet need.


Continue Reading The PTAB’s Erroneous Presumption

Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019)

Today, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which permits the USPTO to recover expenses against applicants who filed civil actions against the USPTO. Section 145 allows unsuccessful parties at the USPTO to file a district court action for review of a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of going directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Traditionally, the statute has been interpreted to permit the USPTO to recover expenses such as copying costs and expert fees.


Continue Reading The American Rule Is Still the Rule

In an inter-partes review proceeding (IPR), a challenger can rely only on patents and printed publications to challenge the validity of a patent claim. In contrast, in a post grant review (PGR) proceeding, a challenger can rely on any ground related to patentability, including prior sale, to challenge a patent claim.  In particular, 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That AIA On-Sale Bar Applied to Secret Sales