As we mentioned on Monday, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. In this case, Lynk Labs appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding finding all challenged patent claims unpatentable. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Lynk Labs argued the Board made multiple “errors in this IPR, each independently requiring reversal.” First, Lynk Labs argued the “Board erroneously construed” claim terms of the patent by failing “to apply the ordinary meaning of the claim language and fail[ing] to consider other claims providing clear guidance.” Further, Lynk Labs argued, the “Board legally erred by holding a secret abandoned U.S. patent application, that published only after the challenged patent’s priority date, can be applied as prior art in an IPR.”
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office filed a Brief for Intervenor. The Director argues that, by statute, a published patent application is a “printed publication.” Furthermore, the Director argued, Lynk Labs’s reading of the statute “would lead to anomalous results” and, as a result, its argument lacks merit.
Samsung, in its response brief, argued the Board correctly applied “the plain language of the claim.” Samsung also argued Lynk Labs’s challenge to the Board’s determination concerning the priority date of a patent application “misunderstands the statutory scheme and contradicts long-standing PTO practice of which Congress was aware when it set up the IPR regime.”
Lynk Labs, in its reply brief, maintained that the Federal Circuit “should reverse the Board’s rulings and hold all Claims . . . patentable.”
The case attracted four amicus briefs. One, filed by VLSI Technology, supports Lynk Labs and reversal. In it, VLSI Technology argued that inter partes reviews are made “only on the basis of prior art ‘patents’ and ‘printed publications'” and not “patent applications that were published only after the critical date.”
Three of the amicus briefs were filed in support of Samsung and its affirmance. The High Tech Inventors Alliance and the Computer & Communications Industry Association in their amicus brief, argued that “patent applications that are published” are “effective as prior art as of their filing dates.” Intel Corporation in its amicus brief also argued that “published patent applications are prior art as of their filing dates.” Finally, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute in its amicus brief argued that “the public has an overwhelming interest in preserving the prior art for published patent applications in IPR proceedings.”
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, October 10. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.