In cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., Appeals 2020-1307, -1309 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision in a CBM proceeding canceling Maritz’s original claims related to a GUI for a customer loyalty program, as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The PTAB had granted Maritz’s request to substitute amended claims, but the court reversed, concluding those claims also are ineligible under section 101.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds Loyalty Rewards Claims Ineligible
The Concrete Injury Necessary for Appellate Standing Is Flexible
A couple of years ago, in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH, 913 F.3d 1076, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit acknowledged its jurisdiction to decide appeals of the Board’s final written decisions in AIA trials, but explained that an appellant (AIA Trial petitioner) must demonstrate it has standing. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), the court explained the appellant must demonstrate, among other things, that it has “suffered an injury in fact.” Amerigen, 913 F.3d at 1082–83.
Continue Reading The Concrete Injury Necessary for Appellate Standing Is Flexible
Rare Circumstances in IPRs are Even Rarer With Poor Strategy
In Hunting Titan Inc. v. DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG, Case IPR 2018-00600 (PTAB Jul. 6, 2020), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) vacated the decision of another Board panel to deny patent owner’s (DynaEnergetics) motion to amend. In that vacated decision, the Board had sua sponte determined the proposed substitute claims were anticipated, despite the petitioner’s (Hunting Titan) failure to advance such a position. After vacating the decision of the panel, the POP granted DynaEnergetics’ motion to amend and its request for rehearing of that panel’s final written decision finding DynaEnergetics’ claims unpatentable.
Continue Reading Rare Circumstances in IPRs are Even Rarer With Poor Strategy
PTAB Plays Wrong Tune On Whether Reference is Analogous Art
In Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, Appeal. No. 20-1104 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision that the Petitioner, Donner Technology, did not sufficiently prove unpatentability because a printed publication on which it relied was not sufficiently analogous to the claimed subject matter. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB, and practitioners alike, of the proper standard for determining whether a reference is “analogous,” as well as how to appropriately apply that standard.
Continue Reading PTAB Plays Wrong Tune On Whether Reference is Analogous Art
Mine Your Patent Application and You Might Find a Licensee
A patent interference is an adversarial proceeding where each party is trying deprive its opponent of a patent on an invention that that the Patent Office has already decided is patentable. Long after the AIA became effective to phase out interferences, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to declare and administer them where at least one of the parties has an interfering application or patent predating the AIA’s enactment. The Board declares interferences to avoid the embarrassment and marketplace chaos where the Patent Office issues two patents on the same invention to different parties, and to avoid awarding a patent monopoly to the entity who was not the first to invent.
Continue Reading Mine Your Patent Application and You Might Find a Licensee
Federal Circuit Provides some Clarity as to when a Claim Preamble is Limiting
In Shoes by Firebug LLC, v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, Appeals 2019-1622, and 2019-1623 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decisions that the claims of two challenged Firebug patents, directed to illumination systems for footwear, were unpatentable for obviousness. Although the PTAB erred in determining that the word “textile” in the preamble of both patents was not limiting (the term was limiting in one of the patents), the court concluded that this error did not affect the PTAB’s conclusions that all challenged claims were obvious.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Provides some Clarity as to when a Claim Preamble is Limiting
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
In a recent precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision, upholding an examiner’s final rejection of claims to a fishing method as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In re Rudy, Case 2019-2301, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020). Appeals to both the Board and the Federal Circuit were cast by a pro se applicant, who is also a patent attorney.
Continue Reading So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Supreme Court to Review the Arthrex Decision
The Supreme Court issued an order on October 13, 2020, granting and consolidating three certiorari petitions seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), reh’g denied, 953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We discussed the Federal Circuit’s judgment here and its decision denying rehearing here. The Supreme Court, at the government’s recommendation, asks the parties to address the following two questions.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review the Arthrex Decision
Opinions Designated As Precedential Illuminate How Factors Governing
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential two opinions with opposite outcomes on the issue of discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) in July. In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020), the Board denied institution of an IPR due to a parallel district court proceeding in the Western District of Texas, whereas in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020), the Board instituted an IPR despite a parallel district court proceeding also occurring in the Western District of Texas.
Continue Reading Opinions Designated As Precedential Illuminate How Factors Governing
Denying a Stay and Building an Airplane While Flying It
A decision to stay patent infringement litigation falls within a federal court’s power to control its docket. But in determining whether to stay litigation pending the Patent Office’s inter partes review (IPR) of the patent, courts still are guided by three factors: (1) whether the stay will simplify the litigation, (2) whether a stay would unduly prejudice (or present a clear tactical disadvantage to) the patent owner, and (3) whether the litigation has progressed to some advanced stage (e.g., discovery is complete, a trial date is set, etc.). Yet since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) (discussed here), courts in the Eastern District of Texas have erected an unnecessarily high bar for stay-movants to leap.
Continue Reading Denying a Stay and Building an Airplane While Flying It