America Invents Act Archives - Page 2 of 10

America Invents Act

No Snipe Hunting: AIA Adherence Means No Interference (Proceedings)

by Jake B. Vallen | Jul 27, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that patents and applications that have only ever contained claims with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013—i.e., pure America Invents Act (AIA) patents—may not be subjected to an interference proceeding by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director. SNIPR Techs. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., Case No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) (Chen, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.)

SNIPR Technologies owns a family of five patents directed to methods of selectively killing bacteria using clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene editing. SNIPR was involved in an interference proceeding with Rockefeller University, which filed a patent application for technology also directed to selectively killing bacteria. The SNIPR patents claimed priority to a Patent Cooperation Treaty application filed on May 3, 2016, thus placing the SNIPR patents squarely within the scope of the AIA. The Rockefeller application claimed priority to, among other things, a US provisional application filed on February 7, 2013, making the Rockefeller application a pure pre-AIA application. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board initially declared an interference between claims 20 to 33 of the Rockefeller application and all claims of the SNIPR patents. The Board ultimately identified Rockefeller as the senior party and canceled all of SNIPR’s claims. SNIPR appealed.

The issue before the Federal Circuit was whether the Board had the authority to cancel SNIPR’s pure AIA claims for lack of invention priority under pre-AIA § 102(g), and more broadly, whether pure AIA patents may, as a matter of law, be part of an interference proceeding.

First, the Federal Circuit examined the plain language of AIA § 3(n) and the statutory purpose and history of the AIA. The Court reasoned that “AIA § 3(n) makes clear that [unless Congress provides otherwise,] only pure pre-AIA and mixed patents may be part of an interference.” As the Court stated, AIA § 3(n)(1) does not permit the AIA’s amendments to apply retroactively and the AIA repealed the statutory grant of power to hear interferences (pre-AIA § 135), instead providing for derivation proceedings.

Next, the Federal Circuit addressed Rockefeller’s and the Director’s arguments that the statutory language of pre-AIA § 135(a) authorizes the Director to declare an interference for “any unexpired patent”—including unexpired pure AIA patents. Unpersuaded, the Court concluded that pre-AIA § 135(a), read in conjunction with the AIA, excludes pure AIA patents for the following reasons:

The AIA replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings.
The AIA deleted all other references to interferences.
The AIA repealed the first-to-invent system of patentability, rendering interference proceedings superfluous.
Permitting interferences for pure AIA patents would subject AIA patents to interferences “for over twenty years after the AIA’s effective date,” which would be contrary to the purpose of the AIA—to implement the first-to-file system of patentability.

Moreover, such a statutory construction would belie AIA § 3(n)(2), which expressly allows for interferences for mixed patents (i.e., patents and applications that contain, or contained at any time, at least one claim with [...]

Continue Reading

Speculative Injury from Rulemaking Petition Denial Doesn’t Confer Standing

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. and Hannah Hurley | Jul 20, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal of a case alleging that the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by denying the plaintiffs’ rulemaking petition. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury was too speculative to confer Article III standing. US Inventor, Inc. v. US Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 22-2218 (D.D.C. July 12, 2023) (Bates, J.)

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent Trial & Appeal Board may hear challenges to the validity of patents through inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). The decision to initiate a review is made at the discretion of the PTO on a case-by-case basis. US Inventor, Inc., and National Small Business United (collectively, NSBU) filed a rulemaking petition with the PTO, arguing that the PTO unlawfully designated cases as precedential or informative without putting those considerations through notice-and-comment rulemaking, as required by the APA. NSBU expressed the same position in a previous lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas that was dismissed for lack of standing—a decision upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. NSBU subsequently filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia. The PTO filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

In a motion to dismiss, a court will accept facts alleged in the complaint as true but will not assume the truth of legal conclusions. The District of Columbia noted that not every denial of a rulemaking petition confers standing on the petitioner. Standing is established by claiming an injury in fact that can be traced to the defendant’s actions and is likely to be redressed by the court. Therefore, a plaintiff must show that the denial of the petition caused a concrete injury in fact. Injury in fact must be concrete, particularized and not conjectural or hypothetical. Standing can be established via associational standing or organizational standing. Here, the court found that NSBU could establish neither.

In finding no associational standing, the District of Columbia agreed with the PTO that NSBU’s theory of injury was too speculative and not concrete. NSBU proposed an “uncertain series of events” that could lead to an alleged injury, but the court rejected the claim as attenuated conjecture based on the actions of independent third parties (similar to the fact pattern in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA.)

The District of Columbia heavily criticized the first step of NSBU’s proposed series of events, which was that a valid IPR or PGR would have to be filed on behalf of a patent held by a member of NSBU’s organizations. The court found that identifying potential members that might face IPR or PGR proceedings if a third party decided to bring a claim against them was too hypothetical and relied entirely on the actions of a third party.

The District of Columbia also disagreed with NSBU’s reliance on statistics. NSBU argued that patent cancellation is more likely [...]

Continue Reading

District Court Finding Doesn’t Preclude PTAB Proceeding

by Mike Baldwin | Jun 15, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board refused to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that collateral estoppel and claim preclusion do not apply to previous findings from a district court proceeding. Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, Paper No. 128 (PTAB June 3, 2023) (Melvin, Giannetti, McNamara, APJs).

Patent Quality Assurance filed a petition for IPR on July 7, 2021, against a patent owned by VLSI. The Board granted institution. The Board later instituted on a substantively identical petition filed by Intel and granted Intel’s motion for joinder to add Intel to the Patent Quality Assurance IPR proceeding. Prior to the July 7, 2021, petition, litigation between VLSI and Intel resulted in a jury verdict that Intel infringed certain claims of the challenged patent. Invalidity was not presented to the jury. On May 10, 2022, the district court entered final judgment, including a finding that Intel had not proven invalidity. Based on the district court’s judgment, VLSI asserted that claim preclusion barred Intel from challenging validity of the asserted patent in IPR and sought termination of the IPR as to Intel.

VLSI argued that the elements of claim preclusion were met because both VLSI and Intel were parties to both cases, the district court entered a final judgment for infringement and no finding of invalidity, and the effect of Intel’s IPR was to collaterally attack the final judgment in the first case. Intel responded, arguing that claim preclusion does not apply to IPRs from the district court under the America Invents Act (AIA).

The Board agreed with Intel that estoppel did not apply. Intel argued that if Congress had intended for IPRs to be precluded by claims in a parallel district court, it would have identified that as one of the estoppel circumstances in the AIA. 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 barring a plain statement from Congress showing intent to overcome preclusion.

The Board disagreed, noting that the cited case law related to statutes where a later statute superseded the earlier one and required a clear and manifest intent to repeal the earlier statute. The Board found that there was no express intent to repeal the earlier statute regarding estoppel, and the jurisprudence constantly counsels against repeal “by implication.” The Board also crucially noted that there was no statutory conflict between the earlier and later statutes, and the question, therefore, was whether (under Astoria) the AIA showed congressional intent that common-law claim preclusion should apply to IPRs.

Reading 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), the codification of the AIA’s estoppel provision, the Board noted that the statute clearly imposes estoppel on future agency and district proceedings but says nothing about applying adjudications in district court proceedings at the Board. As the Board explained, there would be no reason for § 315(e) to spell [...]

Continue Reading

Analogous Art Must Be Compared to Challenged Patent

by Alexandra Cavazos, PhD | May 25, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference relating to automotive engine parts was not analogous art to the challenged patent, which related to injection devices used for drug delivery. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1981 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Sanofi-Aventis owns a patent directed to a drug delivery device that can be configured to allow for the setting of different dose sizes. The main independent claim of the patent recites a spring washer element with “at least two fixing elements configured to axially and rotationally fix the spring washer relative to the housing.”

Mylan initiated an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding against the patent, arguing that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Burren, Venezia and de Gennes. Burren described a drug injection device that used a coiled spring, while Venezia described a hypodermic syringe with a spring washer having a tongue that fit into a collar to prevent the washer from rotating relative to the collar. The third prior art reference, de Gennes, disclosed a large spring-washer-like device used in automobile engines to maintain the alignment between the engine and the transmission. Sanofi argued that de Gennes was non-analogous art because it was not in the same field of endeavor as the injection devices described in the patent and was not reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor of the challenged patent.

The Board adopted Mylan’s definition of the problem to be solved, which was “axially fixing two components relative towards each other.” Under this broad definition, the Board found that de Gennes was reasonably pertinent to the challenged patent and that claims were obvious in view of Burren in combination with Venezia and de Gennes. Sanofi appealed.

Sanofi argued that the Board erred in determining that de Gennes was analogous art. The Federal Circuit explained that in evaluating whether a reference is analogous, a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent. Applying this test, the Court found that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that de Gennes was analogous to the challenged patent. Although Mylan had mapped de Gennes to certain elements of the challenged claims, there was no evidence that de Gennes—an automobile-related patent—was analogous to the challenged patent—a drug delivery device. The Court also found that statements that de Gennes and the challenged patent were “both interested in solving the same issue . . . [of] accommodating various cartridge lengths” were insufficient to show that de Gennes was analogous to the challenged patent.

No Extra Life: Harmless Claim Construction Error Does Not Restart Invalidity Challenge

by Christian Tatum | May 18, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that under the harmless error rule, the challenged claims were invalid as obvious even if the Board erred in claim construction. Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case Nos. 22-1291 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, Cunningham, JJ.).

Bot M8 owns a patent related to a gaming machine that authenticates certain data and includes both a board and a motherboard. The independent claims require that a “game program” is stored in memory on the board and written to the motherboard only after the game program has been authenticated by a central processing unit (CPU) on the motherboard (the Write Limitation). Sony Interactive Entertainment petitioned for inter partes review (IPR). Ultimately, the Board determined that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. Bot M8 appealed.

The issue presented to the Federal Circuit was what data the Write Limitation precludes from being written to the motherboard prior to authentication: (1) the entire game program, (2) any portion of the game program and/or (3) any data (including data not related to the game program). It was undisputed that the claims at minimum preclude writing the entire game program to the motherboard before authentication (option 1). Both the Board and the Court rejected Bot M8’s argument that would preclude writing any data whatsoever before authentication (option 3). The question thus resolved into whether the Write Limitation also precluded writing any portion of the game program prior to authentication (option 2). Bot M8 argued that it did.

Bot M8 focused on a statement made by the Board as indicative that the Board applied an erroneous claim construction that would allow a portion of the game program to be written prior to authentication (rejecting option 2): “[Bot M8] seeks to read into claim 1 a requirement that nothing related to, or any portion of, the gaming information be read into [the motherboard’s] RAM … prior to authenticating the game program.”

The Federal Circuit rejected Bot M8’s argument, finding that even if the Board erred in construing the claim, Bot M8 failed to demonstrate that the alleged error was harmful. Specifically, the Court found that any such error was harmless because the Board never needed to apply an improper construction since it found the prior art disclosed writing only non-game program data prior to authentication, a protocol that both the Board and the Court found was not precluded by the Write Limitation. Deeming the Board’s potential claim construction error harmless, the Court affirmed the Board’s invalidity determination.

Practice Note: Parties seeking to appeal a Board decision based on an improper claim construction theory should demonstrate how the Board’s error resulted in harm.

Pending Appeal Does Not Divest Board of Statutory Authority to Institute IPRs

by Amol Parikh | May 18, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

In a case involving sua sponte review, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated an inter partes review (IPR) decision denying institution, found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had statutory authority to institute IPR review of a claim that had been previously found invalid by a district court under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (but under appeal), and remanded the proceeding for the Board to consider whether discretionary denial was appropriate. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., IPR2022-01366, -01367, -01368, -01369, -01424 (PTO May 2, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.).

Brunswick owns several patents related to marine vessels. Volvo filed IPR petitions challenging the patents, which the Board ultimately denied. Prior to the Board’s decision, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that claim 1 in each of the challenged patents was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus was invalid under § 101. In denying institution, the Board concluded that it lacked authority to institute the IPRs because the challenged claims were no longer in effect and the America Invents Act (AIA) only permits a petitioner to challenge a claim, noting that “when given its plain and ordinary meaning, § 311(b) provides that only claims that are in effect may be annulled.” Although Brunswick appealed the district court’s decision, the Board determined that the challenged claims were finally adjudicated. Thus, the Board lacked authority to institute the requested IPR. The Board also determined that the multi-factor Fintiv analysis for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 214(a) was inapplicable here in view of the district court’s invalidity finding.

The Director reviewed the Board’s decision sua sponte and vacated the Board’s institution decision with instructions to analyze Fintiv factors 1 through 5 in view of the parallel district court proceeding.

The Director first addressed the Board’s § 311(b) analysis. The Director concluded that in finding the district court’s invalidity determination to be a final adjudication, the Board appeared to have borrowed from collateral estoppel principles. The Director found, however, that these principles do not apply to § 311(b) nor was there any assertion that Volvo was collaterally estopped from pursuing IPRs. The Director also determined that the challenged claims were not fully adjudicated since the district court’s decision was subject to further judicial review. Thus, the Director found that the Board had statutory authority to institute the IPRs.

Next, the Director addressed the Board’s Fintiv analysis, finding that the Board improperly interpreted Fintiv as limited to its exercise of discretion in the context of ongoing parallel district court litigation where final judgment has not yet been entered. The Director explained that the Fintiv analysis applied where, as here, the claims remain subject to further review on appeal. The Director instructed the Board to evaluate the Fintiv factors on remand and instructed that if the Board determines that these factors favor discretion to deny institution, the Board should then consider whether the case on the merits is compelling (consistent with the
Continue Reading

PTO Requests Comments on Revisions to AIA Trial Proceedings

by Amol Parikh | Apr 27, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

On April 21, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that it is seeking public input on proposed modifications to the rules of practice for inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs) before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board to better align the practices with the PTO’s mission to promote and protect innovation and investment in the same and to provide a less expensive alternative to district court litigation to resolve certain patentability issues while also protecting against patentee harassment.

The PTO is considering promulgating rules that the Director—and, by delegation, the Board—will use to do the following:

Exercise the Director’s discretion to institute IPRs and PGRs
Provide a procedure for separate briefing on discretionary denial that will allow parties to address relevant issues for discretionary denial without encroaching on the page limit to address the merits of a case
Give petitioners the ability to pay additional fees for a higher word-count limit
Clarify that all settlement agreements, including pre-institution settlement agreements, are required to be filed with the Board.

To create clear, predictable rules where possible, as opposed to balancing tests that decrease certainty, the PTO is considering changes that would provide for discretionary denials of petitions in the following categories, subject to certain conditions and circumstances as discussed further in the Official Notice:

Petitions filed by certain for-profit entities
Petitions challenging under-resourced patent owner patents where the patentee has brought or is attempting to bring products to market
Petitions challenging patent claims previously subject to a final adjudication upholding the patent claims against patentability challenges in district court or in post-grant proceedings before the PTO
Serial petitions
Petitions raising previously addressed prior art or arguments
Parallel petitions
Petitions challenging patents subject to ongoing parallel litigation in district court.

The PTO also seeks comments on proposed threshold definitions that apply to one or more of these categories of petitions subject to discretionary denials. Those definitions set forth the criteria used to determine the following:

What constitutes a “substantial relationship” between entities sufficient to trigger or avoid discretionary denial
When claim sets are deemed to have “substantial overlap” with challenged claims
What constitutes “compelling merits” sufficient to trigger an exception to discretionary denial.

For example, one proposal with respect to the “substantial relationship” is a requirement that a patent owner and petitioner disclose anyone with an ownership interest in the patent owner or petitioner, any government funding related to the patent, any third-party litigation funding support, and any stake any party has in the outcome of the America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding or any parallel proceedings on the challenged claims.

Additional changes being considered by the PTO include the following:

Absent exceptional circumstances, requiring petitioners to file a stipulation that neither they nor their privy or real parties in interest have filed prior post-grant proceedings (PGRs, IPRs, covered business methods or ex parte reexaminations) on the challenged claims
If petitioners’ post-grant proceeding is instituted, requiring that [...]

Continue Reading

No First Place Trophy Here: Public Demo at Trade Show Found Invalidating

by Amol Parikh | Feb 23, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

Addressing the public use bar of pre-America-Invents-Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to invalidate a patent because the patent owner’s disclosure of a prior art device at a trade show more than one year before the patent’s priority date was an invalidating prior public use. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Case No. 21-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Minerva sued Hologic for infringement of a patent directed to surgical devices for a procedure called endometrial ablation, which stops or reduces abnormal uterine bleeding. The patent had a priority date of November 7, 2011, and the asserted claim included the term “the inner and outer elements have substantially dissimilar material properties” (SDMP term). The district court construed the SDMP term to mean that the “inner and outer frame elements have different thickness and different composition.”

On completion of discovery, Hologic moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the asserted patent claims were anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA § 102(b). According to Hologic, more than a year before the patent’s priority date, Minerva brought a device called Aurora to the 38th Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL 2009)—an event dubbed the “Super Bowl of the industry.” During the AAGL 2009 conference, Minerva had a booth with 15 fully functional Aurora devices, gave a presentation discussing the Aurora devices and distributed brochures. In light of the record, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were anticipated under the public use bar. Minerva appealed.

Minerva raised three arguments on appeal. First, Minerva argued that disclosure of the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 was not a “public use” because Minerva “merely displayed” the device. Second, Minerva argued that there was no disclosure of the “invention” of the asserted claim because the Aurora device disclosed at AAGL 2009 lacked the SDMP term. Third, Minerva argued that the invention was not “ready for patenting” because Minerva was still improving the SDMP technology at the time of AAGL 2009, so the device did not function for its intended purpose of ablating “live human” tissue. The Federal Circuit addressed each argument in turn.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had correctly determined that the Aurora device at AAGL 2009 was a “public use” since it was shown to individuals other than the inventor under no limitation, restriction or obligation of confidentiality. The undisputed record showed that Minerva pitched the Aurora device to various sophisticated industry members, who were allowed, without confidentiality obligations, to scrutinize the Aurora device closely enough to recognize and understand the SDMP technology Minerva later sought to patent.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that the Aurora device disclosed the SDMP term. The Court found that the inventors conceived of the SDMP technology before AAGL 2009 and that documentation about the Aurora device from before and shortly after the event [...]

Continue Reading

Review Delayed Is Not Review Denied

by Christopher M. Bruno | Feb 16, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

Considering whether the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director must complete review of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) inter partes review (IPR) decision within the statutory deadline for a final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the statute imposes no such requirement. CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC et al., Case Nos. 20-1565, -1567 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023) (Prost, Taranto, Chen, JJ.).

In 2018, Google filed two IPR petitions challenging certain claims of CyWee’s patents. The Board issued its final written decisions in January 2020, determining that all challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. CyWee appealed to the Federal Circuit in March 2020. In addition to challenging the patentability decision, CyWee challenged the appointment of Board administrative patent judges (APJs) as unconstitutional in view of the Appointments Clause. In March 2021, the Court affirmed the Board’s decisions and rejected CyWee’s constitutional challenge. The Court issued its mandate on June 10, 2020.

Eleven days later, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., holding that APJs’ power to render final patentability decisions unreviewable by an accountable principal officer gave rise to an Appointments Clause violation but this violation could be remedied by, among other things, remanding to the acting PTO Director to decide to rehear the case. In response to a request from CyWee, the Federal Circuit recalled the mandate and remanded “for the limited purpose of allowing CyWee the opportunity to request Director rehearing of the final written decisions,” and required CyWee to inform the Court within 14 days of any decision denying rehearing. On remand, the Commissioner for Patents denied rehearing and ordered that the already-issued final written decisions were final decisions of the PTO. CyWee appealed.

CyWee contended that the post-Arthrex, mandated review by the PTO Director was untimely—and thus violative of due process—because the PTO Director did not have the ability to review the institution decision and final written decision within their respective three-month and one-year statutory deadlines. The Federal Circuit disagreed, calling CyWee’s contentions “meritless.” Rather, the Court found that because the PTO Director had permissibly delegated to the Commissioner for Patents authority to render institution and final decisions to the Board, those decisions were timely so long as the PTO Director’s delegees rendered them within the statutorily prescribed periods. By contrast, the PTO Director’s final review authority—a constitutional necessity born from Arthrex—has no similar statutory deadline.

CyWee also argued that the PTO Director’s later review was too late to satisfy a general requirement that the PTO Director consider the effect of regulations on the PTO’s ability to timely complete instituted IPRs. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument too, finding that even if the statute imposed a general timeliness requirement that was subject to judicial review, nothing about the process afforded to CyWee would have violated such a requirement.

With a different spin on the timeliness issue, CyWee also argued that the Board’s extension [...]

Continue Reading

Prior Art Citation to Inventors’ Report Not “By Another” for § 102(e)

by Paul Devinsky | Aug 25, 2022 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a prior art patent’s summarization of a report authored by the inventors of a patent challenged under inter partes review (IPR) did not constitute a disclosure “by another” under pre-America Invents Act § 102(e). LSI Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, Case No. 21-2057 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, JJ.)

The Regents of the University of Minnesota (UMN) sued LSI Corporation and Avago Technologies (collectively, LSI) for infringement of a patent related to methods for reducing errors in binary data sequences. LSI petitioned for IPR, challenging several claims of the asserted patent and arguing that they were anticipated by two prior art references, Okada and Tsang. Tsang made reference to a “Seagate Annual Report” that was published by the inventors of the asserted patent, and which was later embodied in the patent’s application.

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) found that one of the challenged claims was anticipated by Okada. The Board also found that LSI had not shown that the other challenged claims were rendered unpatentable by either Okada or Tsang and further rejected an invalidity (anticipation) theory first raised by LSI during oral arguments as untimely (while noting that the argument failed even if timely raised). The Board determined that the Tsang reference was not “by another” under § 102(e) because LSI’s petition relied solely on material that was originally disclosed in the inventor’s Seagate Annual Report. LSI appealed the Board’s determinations relating to invalidity based on Okada or Tsang.

The Federal Circuit noted that LSI did not challenge the Board’s untimeliness determination and rejected LSI’s argument that it did not need to because the Board nevertheless reached a merits decision on the argument. The Court cited to its 2016 decision in Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, which held that “the Board’s rejection of arguments on the ground that they were newly raised in a reply brief was not an abuse of discretion even though the Board went on to address the merits.”

Turning to the § 102(e) issue, the Federal Circuit first explained that an invention is anticipated under § 102(e) if the invention is described in a patent application filed “by another,” but a patent owner may overcome such anticipation by establishing that the relevant prior art disclosure describes the owner’s invention. Describing the history of the Tsang reference and the patent under review, the Court explained that the inventors originally submitted a Seagate Annual Report to Seagate, a UMN collaborator. Tsang, a Seagate employee, received the report and quickly filed a patent application for an improvement on the methods described in the report. This application listed only Tsang as inventor and made direct reference to the Seagate Annual Report.

The Federal Circuit then addressed whether LSI’s IPR petition relied on Tsang’s improvement to the inventors’ report or simply on Tsang’s summary of the inventors’ report. The Court explained that while LSI’s petition relied on both Tsang’s summary of the [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS