On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, Judges Wallach and Taranto affirmed the denial of a motion for rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, they confirmed that the Board may consider § 101 eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion based on her view that the case is moot. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case addressing the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to consider eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
- Federal Circuit Denies Uniloc’s Motion to Seal Documents – In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s no-seal order, with the exception of third party licensees who were promised confidentiality.
- Toyota Fails to Revive Patent on Fingerprint-Reducing Coating – On Friday, the Federal Circuit agreed with PTAB’s conclusion that Toyota’s patent for reducing fingerprints on touchscreens was invalid for obviousness in Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd.
- Federal Circuit’s Ruling Could Make it Easier to Prove Infringement of SEPs – In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge I v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., the Federal Circuit seemed unconvinced by TCL’s oral argument against the district court’s finding that TCL infringed two IP Bridge patents.
Here’s the latest.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising a question related to jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a dismissal agreement in a case raising questions related to vitiation; and the denial of petitions in three cases raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel and the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, one new case, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
May the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reject a motion to amend a patent in an inter partes review because the Board concludes that a proposed substitute claim does not comply with the eligibility requirement? The Federal Circuit considered that question during an oral argument last week in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. As discussed in our argument preview, the case attracted an amicus brief in favor of the Board’s position that it may consider eligibility in this context. Here is our argument recap.
This week (and next Monday) the Federal Circuit will convene 18 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, like last moth, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, the court will hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 26 cases being argued this month. Three of these argued cases attracted amicus briefs. Here is what you need to know about those three cases.
The third case being argued this month that attracted an amicus brief is a patent case, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC. This case is an appeal from an invalidation of patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding. In it, Uniloc argues the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “erred in denying, based only on a § 101 patent eligibility challenge, Uniloc’s motion to amend the patent.” In particular, Uniloc’s position is that § 101 challenges are not permissible in IPRs, even with respect to proposed new claims. This is our argument preview.