You searched for - Page 37 of 214

Results for ""

DC Circuit to Disputes Ancillary to Patent Matters: “You Can’t Sit with Us”

by Jake B. Vallen | Mar 2, 2023 | Patents

For the first time, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed whether appeals of discovery orders ancillary to a patent suit are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held in the affirmative. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 22-7001 (DC Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) (Srinivasan, Henderson, JJ., Edwards, Sr. J.)

In February 2017, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung commenced a civil action for patent infringement against Sirius XM Radio in the District of Delaware. During discovery, Fraunhofer subpoenaed for deposition Sirius XM’s former Chief of Marketing Officer, My-Chau Nguyen, a resident of Washington, DC.

After Nguyen failed to appear for her deposition, she filed a motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. Fraunhofer responded with a cross-motion to compel Nguyen’s deposition and a motion for sanctions. The DC district court denied Nguyen’s motion to quash, ordered her to sit for deposition, found her in contempt for failing to appear for deposition in the first instance, and expressed an intent to award sanctions upon Fraunhofer’s submission of documentation reflecting fees and costs. Fraunhofer appealed to the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider Nguyen’s challenge to the district court’s order compelling her deposition in light of the fact that Nguyen’s deposition had already been taken at the time of appeal. The Court held that Nguyen’s challenge was moot because “[n]umerous courts have held that an appeal from enforcement of a subpoena becomes moot once the party has complied with the subpoena.” Therefore, the Court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Nguyen’s subpoena challenge because she had already complied with the subpoena at the time of the appeal.

Next, the Court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to assess the merits of Nguyen’s challenge to the district court’s finding of contempt and intent to award sanctions. The Court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider these issues. The Court explained that because “the underlying litigation between Fraunhofer and Sirius XM in the District of Delaware arises under an Act of Congress relating to patents[,]” Nguyen’s discovery dispute in the DC district court was “ancillary to a patent suit.” The DC Circuit reasoned that only the Federal Circuit is vested with jurisdiction over appeals “arising under . . . any Act of Congress related to patents[.]” (28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).) Holding similarly to other circuits, the Court concluded that because Nguyen’s discovery dispute was ancillary to a patent matter, the ability to decide the merits of her appeal was solely within the province of the Federal Circuit.

The DC Circuit found that it did not have the authority to transfer Nguyen’s challenges to the Federal Circuit, however. The DC Circuit concluded that it was forced to dismiss rather than transfer because “this appeal could not have been brought [...]

Continue Reading

Are You Ready for the UPC? Act Now to Prepare for its Opening on June 1

by Dr. Henrik Holzapfel, Charles Larsen and Diana Pisani | Mar 1, 2023 | EU Update, Patents

On February 17, 2023, Germany ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and triggered the UPC’s entry into force on June 1, 2023. The UPC will revolutionize patent enforcement across Europe and impact companies around the world that hold European patents or conduct business in Europe.

Owners of existing European patents or pending applications can “opt out” of the UPC’s jurisdiction for an initial transitional period of at least seven years. Companies must act now if they want to opt out before the court officially opens.

Understanding the UPC

The UPC will have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement and invalidity actions in its member states for patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), including existing European patents and new European patents with unitary effect (unitary patents). There are currently 17 EU Member States participating in the UPC (Germany, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia). Additional EU Member States may join the UPC in the future.

The UPC will have local and regional divisions in its member states, with a central division in Paris and Munich and a Court of Appeal in Luxembourg.

As a streamlined patent enforcement venue, the UPC will provide several new benefits to patent owners, including faster decisions with limited discovery and lower cost, and the possibility of injunctive relief throughout the member states. At the same time, the UPC will allow revocation of a patent in a single action with effect for all member states, alongside the possibility to oppose a European patent before the EPO.

European Freedom to Operate

Because of the UPC’s structure and incentives, patent litigation will likely increase in Europe, which will heighten the intellectual property (IP) infringement risk for companies doing business in Europe. If a company has not already done so, it should promptly review its competitors’ European patent estates to assess the potential risks and develop a defense strategy to avoid a surprise attack from a competitor after June 1, 2023.

European Enforcement Actions

Although the UPC is new and untried, it has the incentive to provide strong relief for those who trust it. If a company needs to bring a patent infringement action against a competitor and would like to do so in a fast, cost-effective manner, with the possibility of significant remedies, the UPC should be considered as a potential venue. The company should review its portfolio and infringement evidence to assess its opportunities.

Deciding Whether to Opt Out

The right to opt out European patent filings from the UPC’s jurisdiction will be available for an initial transitional period of seven years, which may extend to 14 years. It will be possible to reverse an opt-out, but not if the patent has been enforced or attacked in national court.

McDermott’s UPC Resource Center explores the various advantages and disadvantages of both staying in and opting out of the UPC.

Webinar Series: McDermott IP Focus 2023

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 27, 2023 | Uncategorized

McDermott Will & Emery is committed to providing insightful commentary on IP developments from around the world to our Japanese clients. In light of that effort, we are continuing our free monthly webinar series, McDermott IP Focus. During these sessions, we will explore global developments in IP including disputes, transactions and procurement, with a significant focus on what Japanese companies need to know during this ever-changing business landscape.

Upcoming sessions:

March 2—Life Sciences Session: Pharma Brands v. Generics: Developments Affecting the Balance Between Exclusivity and Market Entry
April 6—Trademark Session: New Options for Trademark Enforcement in the US under the Trademark Modernization Act
April 21—PTAB Session: Strategic Considerations Before Filing IPR Petitions

Over the course of the series, we will feature a variety of speakers from McDermott’s offices around the world. These sessions are presented in English and a Japanese summary is provided orally.

Click here for session details and to register.

When It Comes to Claim Construction, Prosecution History and Specification Rule

by Thomas DaMario | Feb 23, 2023 | Patents

Addressing claim constructions across two patents that ultimately led to noninfringement findings by a district court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed one construction because it was supported by the prosecution history but reversed another because it was unsupported by the specification. SSI Techs., LLC v. Dongguan Zhengyang Elec. Mech. Ltd., Case Nos. 21-2345, 22-1039 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) (Reyna, Bryson, Cunningham, JJ.)

SSI owns two patents directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container such as a fuel tank. One patent, referred to as the transducer patent, describes an exemplary sensor system containing a “level” transducer and a “quality” transducer. The two transducers use ultrasonic sound waves and time of flight to determine both a level of fluid in a given tank and a quality (i.e., concentration of diesel exhaust fluid). The other patent, referred to as the filter patent, describes a similar system but attempts to address the problem of erratic measurement results that may occur because of air bubbles embedded in the fluid. This patent claims a “filter” covering the sensing area that substantially prohibits gas bubbles from entering the sensing area.

Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical (DZEM) produces systems that determine the quality and volume of diesel exhaust fluid that are used in emission-reduction systems for diesel truck engines. SSI accused DZEM of infringing both patents. In the district court action, DZEM brought a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the court’s construction of certain terms that appear in the asserted claims. With reference to the transducer patent, the claims recite the need to “determine whether a contaminant exists in the fluid based on . . . a dilution of the fluid [] detected while the measured volume of the fluid decreases.” The district court determined that this claim element required that the contaminant determination actually consider the measured volume of the fluid. The district court predicated its determination on the prosecution history, having found that this term was amended to include the disputed term and that the applicant’s intention was to incorporate the specific error-detection capability recited in the specification. The parties had previously agreed that the DZEM products did not base the contamination determination on any consideration of the measured volume. As a result, the district court granted DZEM’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the transducer patent.

Regarding the filter patent, the district court adopted DZEM’s construction of the term “filter,” which was “a porous structure defining openings, and configured to remove impurities larger than said openings from a liquid or gas passing through the structure.” DZEM’s accused sensors includes a rubber cover with four apertures. The district court found that the rubber cover was not “porous” because the apertures were “relatively large” when compared with the disclosed embodiments in the specification. As a result, the court granted DZEM’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the filter patent. SSI appealed.

SSI challenged both constructions. Regarding the transducer patent, SSI argued that [...]

Continue Reading

No Standing to Invalidate Trademark without Threat of Infringement Suit

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Feb 23, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that when a party obtains a declaratory relief finding that it does not infringe a trademark, it no longer has Article III standing to pursue invalidation of the mark. San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, Case Nos. 21-55642; -55662; -56095; -56389 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2023) (Bea, Ikuta, Christen, JJ.)

Citizens Equity First Credit Union (CEFCU) registered a trademark for the term “CEFCU. NOT A BANK. BETTER,” and further claimed to own a nearly identical common-law trademark for “NOT A BANK. BETTER.” In 2014, San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU) obtained a registration for “IT’S NOT BIG BANK BANKING. IT’S BETTER.” CEFCU petitioned the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board to cancel SDCCU’s registration, claiming that it covered a mark that was confusingly similar to CEFCU’s registered and alleged common-law marks.

SDCCU sought declaratory relief in the district court seeking a noninfringement finding of CEFCU’s registered and common-law marks, an invalidity finding of CEFCU’s registered and common-law marks, and a finding that CEFCU falsely or fraudulently registered its mark. CEFCU unsuccessfully filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. SDCCU persuaded the district court that during the course of the cancellation proceedings, it became apprehensive that CEFCU would sue SDCCU for trademark infringement. The district court granted SDCCU’s motion for summary judgment on noninfringement and CEFCU’s motion for summary judgment on SDCCU’s fraudulent registration claim. The parties agreed to dismiss the claim that CEFCU’s registered mark was invalid. The only issue remaining was SDCCU’s count seeking declaratory relief to invalidate CEFCU’s common-law mark. After a bench trial, the district court determined that CEFCU’s common-law mark was invalid, entered final judgment and awarded SDCCU attorneys’ fees. CEFCU appealed.

In an appeal that raised a “bevy of issues,” the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction to invalidate CEFCU’s common-law mark following the grant of summary judgment in favor of SDCCU on its noninfringement claims. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in MedImmune v. Genentech and Ninth Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit applied the “reasonable apprehension” test to determine whether a controversy exists in a declaratory judgment action regarding trademark infringement. Under this test, a party has standing to seek declaratory relief of noninfringement if the party demonstrates “a real and reasonable apprehension that [the party] will be subject to liability” if the party’s course of conduct continues. Concrete threats of a trademark infringement suit are not required to create live controversy to provide standing to seek declaratory relief action.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that justiciable controversy existed at the pleading stage, pointing to CEFCU’s cancellation petition, CEFCU’s testimony that it was just a “matter of time” before actual confusion occurred in California, and CEFCU’s affirmative refusal to stipulate that SDCCU was not infringing CEFCU’s marks. However, once the district court rendered its declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the record lacked any evidence that an ongoing threat of liability was causing [...]

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

Nothing Lasts for Everly, Not Even Copyright Co-Authorship Rights

by Kathleen Lynch | Feb 23, 2023 | Copyrights

Addressing a novel issue, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a statute of limitations can time-bar a defense in narrow circumstances where a defendant uses it to seek affirmative relief. Garza v. Everly, Case No. 21-5530 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2023) (Bush, Guy, JJ.) (Murphy, J., concurring).

After successful careers writing and recording music as the Everly Brothers, Don and Phil Everly disputed copyright ownership of certain songs. Don sued Phil’s estate, seeking declaratory judgment that Don was the sole author of “Cathy’s Clown.” After a bench trial, the district court held that Don repudiated Phil’s co-authorship of “Cathy’s Clown” and Phil failed to reassert his co-authorship rights within the three-year timeframe provided by the Copyright Act. The trial court also ruled that Phil’s estate was “time-barred from asserting he was a co-author as a defense,” since the Copyright Act time-barred him from asserting the same as a claim. Don died in the interim, and Phil’s estate appealed.

There were three issues on appeal:

Whether the lower court improperly applied the Copyright Act’s scheme for authorship claims
Whether the finding of Don’s repudiation was erroneous
Whether the court erred in applying the statute of limitation to Phil’s defense.

Regarding the authorship issue, the Sixth Circuit explained that the Copyright Act allows authors to transfer ownership of works while retaining certain rights, including a termination right that lets authors later reclaim copyright ownership. Phil’s estate argued that because termination rights are inalienable, the trial court erred in finding that Phil was not a co-author since he should have had the opportunity to reclaim his rights. The estate also argued that any statute of limitations regarding Phil reclaiming co-authorship should not have started tolling until all of Phil’s descendants learned of these rights. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, explaining that the lower court properly applied the Copyright Act. Because Phil did not dispute repudiation within the statutory period, the trial court correctly denied his co-ownership. Furthermore, the statute of limitations does not “refresh itself” when an owner dies, because descendants cannot obtain rights a decedent had forfeit.

Addressing the repudiation issue, the Sixth Circuit found ample trial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion. The evidence included 1980s vintage letters, phone calls, and a “Release and Assignment” Phil signed containing language relinquishing his co-authorship rights in “Cathy’s Clown.” There was also credible testimony that Don “plainly and expressly repudiated Phil’s authorship” decades prior.

Finally, addressing the statute of limitations defense, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court. In doing so, it noted that Phil’s estate originally argued that Phil remained a co-author of “Cathy’s Clown” as a counterclaim to Don’s suit. It was only after Don successfully argued that the claim was time-barred that Phil’s estate “reframed the counterclaim into a defense.” The Court explained the general policies underpinning statutes of limitation and noted that they typically do not bear on defenses because plaintiffs could otherwise wait out the statutory periods for defenses before suing. However, this [...]

Continue Reading

Message Received: US Courts Are Appropriate, More Convenient Venue to Adjudicate US IP Disputes

by Courtney Seams | Feb 23, 2023 | Copyrights, Trade Secrets, Trademarks

Addressing personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in a software licensing dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Dutch entity and the court’s decision to not dismiss the case for forum non conveniens. dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Europe BV, Case Nos. 21-1721; -2005 (4th Cir. Feb. 14, 2023) (Wilkinson, Heytens, Hudson, JJ.)

dmarcian is a North Carolina-based software company that developed software to help email users authenticate incoming emails. A Dutch businessman who owned Mailmerk contacted dmarcian to offer to market the software in Europe. While dmarcian was initially unreceptive to the offer, the two parties eventually reached an oral agreement for Mailmerk to rebrand as dmarcian Europe BV (dmarcian BV) and sell the dmarcian software in Europe and Africa.

A dispute arose when dmarcian BV claimed ownership of portions of the dmarcian source code. dmarcian BV filed suit in the Netherlands, eventually filing for and winning injunctive relief in the Netherlands when dmarcian terminated dmarcian BV’s license. dmarcian then filed suit in the Western District of North Carolina asking for a preliminary injunction against dmarcian BV, which dmarcian BV opposed with a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and entered a preliminary injunction that precluded dmarcian BV from operating outside of Europe and Africa and required dmarcian BV to stop using the registered “dmarcian” trademark without a disclaimer. The district court later found dmarcian BV in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction and ordered dmarcian BV to pay $335,000 in sanctions. dmarcian BV appealed the injunction and the sanctions.

dmarcian BV argued that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument, finding that the North Carolina long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction over dmarcian BV. The Court found that the application of the long-arm statute to dmarcian BV complied with due process because dmarcian BV worked closely with the dmarcian team in North Carolina (e.g., receiving sales leads, attending virtual meetings, coordinating software development), dmarcian BV sought out dmarcian to initiate business, and there was a strong interest in protecting intellectual property rights in North Carolina.

The Fourth Circuit also upheld the denial of the dismissal for forum non conveniens because the Dutch court was not an adequate alternative forum since Dutch courts cannot effectively adjudicate US trademark claims. The Fourth Circuit found that any judgment by the Dutch court would have little effect in the United States and would deny relief to dmarcian for the infringement of its rights.

The Fourth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction grant, finding that the district court properly applied US and North Carolina law extraterritorially and that dmarcian was likely to succeed on all claims. The Court found that US laws properly applied and that dmarcian was likely to succeed on the following claims:

Copyright infringement, because there was a registered copyright, dmarcian BV reproduced elements of the source code outside of the licensing agreement, and [...]

Continue Reading

Patenting a Nice Cool Glass of Nicotinamide Riboside? Claims Covering Milk Invalid under § 101

by Alexander Piala, PhD | Feb 23, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that claims covering a naturally occurring composition were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because one component of the composition had been “isolated.” ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., Case No. 2022-1116 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) (Chen, Prost, Stoll, JJ.)

ChromaDex sued Elysium (a former ChromaDex customer) for infringement of its patent directed to dietary supplements containing nicotinamide riboside (NR). Elysium moved for summary judgment, arguing that the asserted claims were invalid under the § 101 prohibition against patenting natural phenomena. After the district court granted summary judgment, ChromaDex appealed.

The asserted claims were directed to a composition comprising:

Isolated NR
One or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid or nicotinamide
One of 22 carriers
Increased NAD+ biosynthesis after eating.

Both parties conceded that milk satisfies every element of the asserted claims with the exception that its NR is not “isolated.” Both parties also conceded that milk is a naturally occurring material and thus not patent eligible under § 101.

On these facts, the issue presented was whether the claim limitation that the NR must be “isolated” (which does not occur in nature) was sufficient to make the claims patent eligible. The Federal Circuit responded “no.”

The Federal Circuit analyzed the asserted claims under two tests: the “markedly different characteristics” test set out in Chakrabarty, and the Alice two-step test (unsure whether Chakrabarty remains controlling precedent).

Under the Chakrabarty test, a claimed composition is not a natural phenomenon if it has “markedly different characteristics” from what occurs in nature. The Federal Circuit found that ChromaDex’s claimed composition had no markedly different characteristics from natural milk. While ChromaDex argued that isolation potentially allowed for unnaturally high concentrations of NR, the claims did not require such concentrations. The claims included compositions structurally and functionally identical to milk and therefore failed the “markedly different characteristics” Chakrabarty test.

Proceeding to the two-part Alice test, under step 1 the Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to a product of nature because there were no structural differences between the claimed composition and natural milk. Under step two, the Court found that there was no “inventive step” because the claims were merely directed to increasing NAD+ biosynthesis, which was a natural principle that resulted from drinking milk.

Practice Note: During claim drafting, care should be taken to avoid claims that encompass all structural and functional components of a naturally occurring material.

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