Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC


Issue(s) Presented

  1. “Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which establish ‘structural bias’ as a violation of due process.”
  2. “Whether the Director’s delegation of his responsibility to make final unreviewable institution decisions to the same APJ’s who make the Final Written Decision violates the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.”
  3. “Whether subjecting the Pre-AIA ’417 Patent to an AIA Proceeding so fundamentally different from the post review proceedings that existed at the time Mobility’s inventors applied for and obtained their patent constitutes an unlawful taking of property.”
  4. “Whether the PTAB’s decisions should be vacated and remanded because the PTAB panel that decided the cases was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.”
  5. “Whether the PTAB’s holding of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 unpatentable over Liu or Liu and Gwon should be reversed because its finding that Liu or Liu and Gwon teach or suggest a ghost-mobile node ‘triggering signals’ that are ‘required to allocate resources and initiate mobility on behalf of the mobile node’ is not supported by substantial evidence.”


“We first address these other constitutional challenges because a determination that the Board is unconstitutionally structured or that the proceedings are otherwise unconstitutional would dispose of the case and make consideration of the Arthrex issue or the merits unnecessary. We conclude that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Without reaching the merits of the Board’s decision, in light of Arthrex, we remand to the Acting Director to determine whether to grant rehearing.”