Part I of this article discussed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a very different tribunal from district courts.. Part II will discuss strategies that give patent owners a better chance at successfully navigating the IPR process.
I. Introduction - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was years in the making. From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 20052.
Following similar suits filed in May against AMD, MediaTek, and Samsung, plaintiffs Continental Circuits LLC (as patent holder) and Continental Circuits of Texas LLC (as exclusive licensee).
New Vision s arguments were unavailing, however, as the Federal Circuit avoided the issue entirely, ruling last week that the Board s decision be vacated and the case remanded for hearing before a constitutionally properly appointed panel. The basis for this decision is that New Vision had not waived its challenge under
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, now under review by the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit s opinion was written by Judge Moore joined by Judge Taranto and in part by Judge Newman, who also dissented-in-part. It is Judge Newman s dissent that is noteworthy, because Judge Newman believed that the question of whether a contract/license between the parties, designating the District of Nevada as the forum for any dispute, should have precluded the PTAB from asserting jurisdiction (and as a threshold issue might have precluded remand if the PTAB had improperly done so). The PTAB, intervenor in this appeal, maintained that the jurisdiction issue was not provided
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision
New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., FKA Bally Gaming, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the ground that the decision issued after the CAFC’s
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision (where the CAFC made administrative patent judges of the Board “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause). New Vision is appealing two covered-business method review final written decisions in which the Board held all claims of the patents at issue patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The CAFC’s opinion, delivered by Judge Moore, is short and largely unremarkable. What is more interesting, however, is Judge Newman’s dissent.