Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

CAFC Affirms PTAB Finding that Certain Uniloc Claims are Invalid, But Says Apple Failed to Prove Other Claims Unpatentable

On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB/ Board) in an inter partes review (IPR), holding the PTAB properly construed the claim language.

In April 2018, Apple Inc. filed a petition for IPR, alleging that all 25 claims of U.S. Patent No.  8,539,552 (“the ‘552 patent”) owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC were unpatentable. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2018-00884, Petition at 1 (P.T.A.B.). During the IPR, the PTAB held claims 1-17 and 23-25 of the ‘552 invalid for obviousness in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,279 (“Kalmanek”). Uniloc then appealed the decision. On appeal, Uniloc argued that the Board’s decision to invalidate the claims of the ‘552 patent resulted from an erroneous construction of a claim term. In its cross-appeal, Apple argued that the PTAB erred in holding that Apple failed to show the remaining claims of the ‘552 patent, claims 18-22, would have been obvious in view of Kalmanek. The CAFC upheld the PTAB on all issues.

Patent Filings Roundup: Microsoft Battles Daedalus Blue; Intel Gears Up for First-to-File Fight; Electric Blanket Boogaloo

After almost 200 district court patent filings last week, things settled back into their recent rhythm, with an average 66 district court complaints (including some “Schedule A” brand anti-counterfeiting complaints) and 28 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions filed (all inter partes reviews [IPRs]) this week. There were no IP Edge or Rothschild complaints this week, after last week’s busy filings. There were no Fintiv denials again this week; the PTAB petitions included three IPRs filed by Microsoft against Daedalus Blue LLC against patents originally assigned to IBM (more below), as well as various patents related to ongoing challenges (like the rolling Lasik J&J/Alcon fight), more fracking IPRs, more Peloton-related challenges (those bikes make big bucks!), and a curious rechargeable-battery suit between a Taiwanese U.S. patent holder and a U.S. rechargeable battery company based in Michigan, A123 Systems, LLC. Those batteries are supplied to NEC and other device manufacturers, so what looks at first blush like a small suit probably is set to have broader implications. Nokia had a Google challenge denied, and two Ideahub [Synkloud] challenges by Microsoft were denied as well, on the merits; and more Uniloc/Fortress IP claims were cancelled on final written decision.

Patent Filings Roundup: Litigation Explosion Fueled by IP Edge; Patent Plaintiff Seeking Defendants; Companies File Declaratory Judgment Against Landmark as Troll

The district courts saw an explosion of new patent filings last week (183, more than 100 over the weekly average to date), driven largely by dozens and dozens of new IP Edge complaints filed by an array of entities. There were no discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and Board filings were normal, with 32, including another post grant review (PGR) in the ongoing iRobot/SharkNinja battle. A number of Longhorn Vaccine’s diagnostics patents were challenged by competitor Spectrum Solutions LLC; and Johnson & Johnson continued to be challenged at the Board by Alcon on various Lasik patents.

Peloton’s Online Exercise Class Patents: Past, Present and Future

Peloton Interactive, Inc. is a popular fitness company that offers high-end stationary bikes, treadmills, and online exercise classes. The demand for online exercise classes increased significantly during the pandemic, and so did Peloton’s market cap. With over 4 million members and quarterly revenue over $1 billion, Peloton has become a leader in the online fitness industry. Peloton secured certain patent rights in the United States with respect to online exercise classes during the early years of its development and has continuously expanded its patent portfolio. Its online exercise patents claim methods and systems that enable users to virtually compare with and compete against other users. This article explores the prosecution history of these patents, their current challenges under inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and possible future developments.

Saul v. Carr: The SCOTUS Social Security Decision Patent Practitioners Should Read

On April 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Carr v. Saul, which dealt with a constitutional Appointments Clause challenge to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) under the Social Security Administration (SSA). In particular, the issue in Carr was whether claimants for disability benefits had forfeited their Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise those constitutional challenges before the agency. The Supreme Court has now ruled that the claimants’ challenges were not forfeited. The decision favoring the claimants was unanimous, although the Court was not quite unanimous on the legal bases for the ruling. The question to be addressed in this essay is what effect, if any, Carr has on practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); and in particular, whether constitutional challenges must be raised before the agency lest those challenges be forfeited.