August 2024 | Page 3 of 5

Month: August 2024

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

by Thomas DaMario | Aug 1, 2024 | Patents

On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the possibility of the patent owner amending the claims under the Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot Program. ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, Case Nos. 22-2220; -2250 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2024) (Dyk, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

ZyXEL Communications petitioned for IPR challenging claims 1 – 4, 6, 7 and 8 of a patent owned by UNM Rainforest Innovation (UNMRI). The patent relates to methods for constructing frame structures in communication systems using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) technologies. The patent describes a method for constructing a frame structure with two sections, each of which is configured for a different communication system, where the second communication system is used to support high mobility users (i.e., faster moving users).

Before the Board, ZyXEL argued that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable in light of two prior art references (Talukdar and Li), and that claim 8 was unpatentable in light of Talukdar and another prior art reference (Nystrom). During the Board proceedings, UNMRI filed a contingent motion to amend if any of the challenged claims were found to be unpatentable. As part of its motion, UNMRI requested preliminary guidance from the Board pursuant to the Board’s MTA Pilot Program. In its opposition to UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that UNMRI’s amended claims lacked written description support, and in its preliminary guidance, the Board agreed. UNMRI attempted to file a revised motion to amend, but the Board rejected the revised motion and instead permitted UNMRI to file a reply in support of its original motion. It also allowed ZyXEL to file a sur-reply. The Board determined that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable, but that claim 8 was not. The Board also granted UNMRI’s motion to amend and determined that the new claims were nonobvious over the prior art of record. Both sides appealed.

With respect to the Board’s decision on the obviousness of claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the ruling. UNMRI’s primary argument was that a person of skill in the art (POSA) would not have been motivated to combine Talukdar and Li, but the Court credited the Board’s reliance on ZyXEL’s expert, who demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine the two references.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding that claim 8 had not been shown to be obvious, however. The Court noted that while the Nystrom reference may not explicitly state the benefit of the missing limitations, “a prior art reference does not need to explicitly articulate or express why its teachings are beneficial so long as its teachings are beneficial and a POSA would recognize that their application was beneficial.”

Regarding UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that the Board erred in granting the [...]

Continue Reading

Don’t Mess With Anna: Texas Town Schools Patent Owner on § 101

by Tessa Kroll | Aug 1, 2024 | Patents

On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in conducting a background investigation” did not claim patent-eligible subject matter, but that the mere assertion of the patent did not render the case “exceptional” for the purposes of attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2024) (Moore, C.J.; Cunningham, Stoll, JJ.)

Miller Mendel sued the City of Anna, Texas, for infringement of claims directed to software for managing pre-employment background investigations based on the Anna police department’s use of the Guardian Alliance Technologies (GAT) software platform. Miller Mendel’s complaint asserted “at least claims 1, 5, and 15” of the patent, each of which generally recited a “method for a computing device with a processor and a system memory to assist an investigator in conducting a background investigation” comprising the steps of receiving data identifying the applicant, storing the data, transmitting an applicant hyperlink to the applicant’s email address and receiving an applicant’s response.

Anna moved for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the patent claims were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After the district court granted the motion, Miller Mendel filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate any unasserted patent claims. The district court denied the reconsideration motion but clarified that its decision was limited to asserted claims 1, 5 and 15. Anna also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which the district court denied, finding that the case was not exceptional. Miller Mendel appealed the § 101 issue, and Anna cross-appealed on the unasserted claims and attorneys’ fees issues.

The Federal Circuit first addressed Miller Mendel’s argument that the district court erred in relying on a declaration filed by Anna in ruling on the Rule 12(c) motion. The Court acknowledged that a Rule 12(c) motion must be treated as one for summary judgment if matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court. However, the district court explained that the declaration was not relevant to its decision, and it did not rely on any material outside the pleadings in its § 101 analysis. Thus, the Federal Circuit found that any error in failing to explicitly exclude the declaration was harmless.

Turning next to the patent eligibility analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that under Alice step one, the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of performing a background check. The claims and specification emphasized that the invention was a system to “help a background investigator more efficiently and effectively conduct a background investigation” by “automating a majority of the tasks of a common pre-employment background investigation so that fewer hardcopy documents are necessary.” In other words, the problem facing the inventor was the abstract idea of performing background checks more efficiently [...]

Continue Reading

Beware Equitable Doctrine of Issue Preclusion in Multiparty, Multivenue Patent Campaigns

by Sydney E. McDermott | Aug 1, 2024 | Patents

Addressing for the first time whether an invalidity order merges with a voluntary dismissal for purposes of finality, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an interlocutory order merges with the final dismissal, rendering the interlocutory order final for purposes of issue preclusion. Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., Case No. 22-2090 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2024) (Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.). As a consequence, the Federal Circuit found that the patent owner’s appeal from an adverse decision in an inter partes review (IPR) was moot under the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel.

In July 2020, Koss filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bose in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents whose common specification discloses a “wireless earphone that communicates with a digital-audio source, such as an iPod, over an ad hoc wireless network like Bluetooth.” The same day, Koss asserted the same patents against Plantronics. Bose filed a motion challenging venue and also petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the three patents. Later in 2020, Bose filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of noninfringement in the District of Massachusetts on the three patents Koss asserted against Bose in the Texas litigation. The Massachusetts litigation was stayed pending the resolution of the venue motions in the Texas case.

In 2021, the Texas court dismissed Koss’s complaint against Bose for improper venue. Koss then asserted a counterclaim of infringement of the same three patents in the Massachusetts litigation. The Massachusetts court again stayed the litigation pending the resolution of the IPRs, which (by that time) the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had instituted. Meanwhile, Koss’s case against Plantronics was transferred to the Northern District of California, and Plantronics moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all the asserted claims (which included all the claims asserted against Bose) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The California court granted Plantronics’s motion, rendering all the asserted claims invalid. However, that order did not finally dispose of the case.

Koss then moved for leave to amend its complaint, which the California district court granted. In the amended complaint, Koss asserted two additional patents. Plantronics moved to dismiss the asserted claims in those patents as invalid under § 101. The parties fully briefed Plantronics’s motion, but before the district court issued a decision on the merits of that motion, Koss voluntarily stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, disposing of the lawsuit in its entirety. Koss did not ask the district court to vacate its earlier order finding certain claims invalid under § 101. The California district court then issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. The deadline for Koss to appeal the judgment came and went – Koss did not appeal.

Arguing that the patents had been finally adjudicated invalid in the Plantronics litigation, Bose moved to dismiss Koss’s appeal from the Board in the IPR proceedings as moot. Koss opposed the motion, arguing that its amended complaint rendered the invalidity decision on the prior complaint non-final because the [...]

Continue Reading

UK Court of Appeal Increases FRAND Rate, Applies It Outside Limitations Period

by Amol Parikh | Aug 1, 2024 | EU Update, Patents

The UK Court of Appeal found that the UK High Court of Justice applied flawed reasoning in setting a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for a patent portfolio essential to 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technologies. Interdigital Tech Corp. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case Nos. CA-2023-001489; -001492 (July 12, 2024) (Arnold, Nugee, Birss, LJ.) The Court of Appeal not only concluded that a higher rate was appropriate but applied the rate to sales prior to the limitations period.

In March 2023, the High Court issued its decision in InterDigital v. Lenovo, concluding that Lenovo should pay InterDigital a FRAND rate of $0.175 per cellular unit for a worldwide license to InterDigital’s portfolio. The High Court also found that Lenovo should pay the FRAND rate for all previous unlicensed sales, even if those sales occurred before the statutory damages limitation period. The High Court calculated that the $0.175 rate yielded a lump sum payment from Lenovo to InterDigital of $138.7 million for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023. The High Court’s FRAND rate determination was closer to Lenovo’s offered rate of $0.16 per unit than to InterDigital’s demand of $0.498 per unit. Both parties appealed.

Lenovo argued that the High Court wrongly found that Lenovo should pay a royalty for sales made outside of the six-year limitation period. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the statute of limitations period has no role to “play in a determination of FRAND terms between (necessarily) a willing licensor and a willing licensee.” The Court of Appeal explained that a willing licensor would not “refuse to pay whatever license fees were eventually determined to [be] applicable” to products outside the limitations period and would not be considered willing if it refused. The Court of Appeal concluded that a willing licensee would not try to benefit from delay in agreeing FRAND terms or payment of FRAND royalties and, therefore, would pay with respect to all past units. From a policy perspective, the Court of Appeal noted that there should not be an incentive for the licensee to delay negotiations to minimize the amount it should be required to pay.

InterDigital challenged the per unit rate set by the High Court, including the rate derived from one of the comparable licenses and the adjustments made to reflect Lenovo’s position vis-à-vis the licensee. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s rate determination was internally inconsistent because it found that InterDigital had been forced to heavily discount past sales and this aspect was not FRAND while also declining to make any correction to the blended rate that had been derived from the license to account for non-FRAND factors. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not properly justify rejecting InterDigital’s allocation of the lump sum paid by the licensee between past sales and future sales, which would have led to a higher rate.

The Court of Appeal conducted a detailed review of the [...]

Continue Reading