A quiet week resulted in 28 petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), mostly related to preexisting suits, though with a perhaps surprising number of semiconductor patents challenged, and three Qualcomm challenges to Monterey Research (i.e., Vector Capital) patents were all instituted; in general, the district courts had a light week with 55 patent filings, many complaints adding new defendants for old campaigns. Some of the recently filed complaints in the longest-running Blitzsafe campaign against were dismissed without prejudice against automotive OEMs; and probably most notable, in a Fintiv denial, a panel cited the global pandemic and the uncertainty of trial schedules in weighing that factor neutrally (while still exercising their discretion for other reasons), as discussed below. Sonos hit back with inter partes reviews (IPRs) against Google patents in their ongoing dispute.
Western District Scheduling Order Trial Dates Too Uncertain for Fintiv Analysis: In one of the more notable findings related to Fintiv since Director Iancu stepped down earlier this year, a Board panel found that:
The uncertainty surrounding current international COVID-19 restrictions and the lack of guidance when these restrictions may be lifted raises doubt whether the trial will commence in October as currently scheduled. As such, we determine that the facts underlying this factor are neutral.” See IPR2021-00236, ID (denying institution under Fintiv for other reasons).
That’s notable, given how often other panels have, in the past, discounted all other evidence of potential delay, statistical analysis of court congestion, or the unreliability of scheduled trial dates (which given settlement and court congestion almost never happen on time). The Board here exercised their Fintiv discretion to deny institution based on other factors, but their discounting of the often-dispositive trial date in Factor 2 suggests the Board may have hit their high-water mark in relying on the unreliable trial dates as evidence in exercising their discretion. That said, these decisions are rather panel- and fact-specific, with parties pleading differing evidence as to the reliability of those dates.
Semi-Charmed Kinda Life: There has been and was again a surprising amount of semiconductor/litigation funded/NPE litigation and PTAB challenges this week. For example, Qualcomm was instituted this week in three IPR challenges against three Monterey Research (Vector Capital Corporation) semiconductor patents. The patents are former Spansion chip fabrication patents, including, for example, “Semiconductor Formation Method that Utilizes Multiple Etch Stop Layers.” See U.S. Pats. 6,680,516, 7,572,727, and 7,977,797; IPR2021-00119, IPR2021-00120, IPR2021-00121. A petition by Western Digital against Ocean Semiconductor (Fullbrite Capital Partners) and another by NXP against Bell Semiconductor (Hilco, Inc.), as well as all of Samsung’s voluminous activity against Nanoco’s subsidiaries, a semiconductor reseach firm focused on quantum dots, are all futher evidence this area continues to roil with litigation funding and serial assertions.
Board Orders Party to Cease Filing on Patent Forever: In a case with a somewhat tortured history, the Board has ordered the petitioner not to file any more challenges after e-mail representations and a Section 314 discretionary denial in a related case. While the Board’s order (and the parties’ bickering) aren’t crystal clear, the upshot is both that the petitioners, Dynatemp Int’l, Inc. and Fluorofusion Speciality Chems., Inc., are now apparently barred from filing any further challenges, even apart from discretionary considerations. The order language:
Petitioner shall not file in this forum any other petition requesting review of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,706 B2.
It’s an odd (and I believe, unique) result of an attempt to voluntarily dismiss petitions following a separate discretionary denial; it raises questions about whether the Board has the ability to unilaterally order parties to cease any future filing before it, absent statutory support such as estoppel or other action. Though, if the party did volunteer that they would not continue to challenge it, another way to look at the order is that it is just a recognition of the parties’ stated intent to be bound. The case is IPR2021-00199—and to be fair, the facts and the representations the parties made are muddled and somewhat unique.
PTAB (28) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District Court (55) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author lightsource
Image ID: 159708306
Join the Discussion
No comments yet.