IP UPDATE

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia of nonobviousness. Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. et. al., Case Nos. 23-1674; -1701 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Hughes, JJ.) (per curium).

Ancora owns a patent directed to limiting software use on a computer through license verification. The patented technology centers on storing an “agent,” which is a license verification program, in a computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS) rather than in volatile memory. In 2021, Nintendo, Roku, and VIZIO separately filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of Ancora’s patent. The Board consolidated the proceedings and ultimately found certain claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two prior art references: Hellman (which discloses storing license information in nonvolatile memory) and Chou (which discloses a BIOS-level security routine). Ancora appealed.

Ancora raised three issues on appeal:

That the Board erred in construing the claim term “agent”
That even if the Board correctly construed “agent,” it nonetheless erred in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a combination of Hellman and Chou
That the Board erred in its analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of “agent” to mean “a software program or routine” with no further limitations. The Court disagreed with Ancora’s argument that “agent” was limited to use in software only, primarily because neither the patent nor prosecution history provided any disclaimer of hardware. For similar reasons, the Court also disagreed with Ancora’s argument that “agent” was limited to use at the operating-system level.

On the obviousness determination, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s conclusion that the combination of Hellman and Chou rendered the claims prima facie obvious. The Court rejected Ancora’s argument that the Hellman/Chou combination would not provide motivation to combine since they are redundant.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the Board’s analysis of the objective indicia of nonobviousness, particularly the treatment of Ancora’s licensing evidence. The Board found that Ancora failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the claimed invention and evidence of two objective indicia of nonobviousness: industry praise and licensing.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board on industry lack of nexus for the alleged praise (where the Board found that praise for the invention in a press release and an agreement between Ancora and another company offering products using the patent was directed broadly to the patent and not specifically to the challenged claims). However, the Court found that the Board erred regarding the appropriate nexus as it relates to Ancora’s licensing evidence.

The Board found that Ancora failed to show a nexus between the challenged claims and two licenses it obtained through settlement agreements in other cases. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the Board applied an overly stringent nexus standard inconsistent with precedent. While products may require detailed [...]

Continue Reading

Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion

by Amol Parikh | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in unfair dealings by challenging a patent on which its employees were the inventors. Tessell, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc., IPR2025-00322 (PTAB June 12, 2025) (Stewart, Act. Dir.)

Four individuals were Nutanix employees when they invented the subject matter of the challenged patent. Two of the individuals left to form Tessell and later hired the other two. Tessell, which now includes nearly all of the inventors of the challenged patent, filed a petition for IPR arguing that the claims of the patent were unpatentable. Nutanix filed a request for discretionary denial, which Tessell opposed.

The doctrine of assignor estoppel generally prevents an inventor who has sold or assigned a patent from challenging the validity of the patent. Although assignor estoppel does not apply in IPR proceedings, the acting director explained that the PTO may consider unfair dealings as a factor when determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The acting director found that it was inappropriate for the inventors to have used PTO resources to obtain a patent only to later advocate for its unpatentability. The acting director therefore exercised discretion to deny institution.

Case closed: Commission sanctions ruling isn’t an import decision

by Jodi Benassi | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a denial of sanctions at the International Trade Commission was not a “final determination” under trade law because it did not affect the exclusion of imported goods. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC and Future Link Systems, LLC, Case No. 23-1187 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2025) (Reyna, Bryson, Stoll, JJ.)

In 2019, Future Link entered into a license agreement with MediaTek, Inc. (not a party to the present litigation), which included a provision for a lump-sum payment if Future Link filed a lawsuit against Realtek. Future Link subsequently initiated a patent infringement complaint against Realtek before the Commission. During the proceedings, Future Link settled with a third party and determined that the settlement resolved the underlying dispute, prompting it to notify Realtek and ultimately withdraw its complaint. Realtek moved for sanctions, citing the MediaTek agreement as improper, but the administrative law judge (ALJ), while expressing concern about the agreement’s lawfulness, found no evidence it influenced the complaint and denied sanctions. The Commission terminated the investigation after no petition for review of the ALJ’s termination order was filed. Realtek then petitioned the Commission to review the denial of sanctions, but the Commission declined, closing the sanctions proceeding. Realtek appealed to the Federal Circuit, not challenging the investigation’s termination but seeking an order requiring Future Link to pay a fine based on the alleged impropriety of its agreement with MediaTek.

Realtek argued that the Commission and the ALJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In response, the Commission and Future Link not only defended the denial on the merits but also challenged the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction and Realtek’s standing to appeal. The Court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6), which only authorizes review of final determinations under specific subsections of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). Because the Commission’s denial of sanctions under subsection (h) does not constitute a “final determination” under § 1337(c), the Court declined to address standing or the merits of the sanctions issue.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that a “final determination” within the meaning of § 1295(a)(6) refers to decisions affecting the exclusion of imported articles, such as those made under subsections (d), (e), (f), or (g) of § 1337. Realtek argued that the Commission’s denial of its sanctions request qualified as a final merits decision, but the Court disagreed, citing long-standing precedent, including its 1986 decision in Viscofan, S.A. v. ITC, that limits appellate jurisdiction to exclusion-related rulings. Because the sanctions decision had no bearing on whether products were excluded from importation, the Court held that it lacked the authority to review and dismissed the appeal.

CRISPR Clarity: Enablement Is Analyzed Differently Under §§ 102 and 112

by Peter Marston | Jun 18, 2025 | Life Sciences, Patents

In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was enabling for purposes of anticipation, even in the absence of working examples. Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp., Case Nos. 23-2186; -2187 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2025) (Prost, Linn, Reyna, JJ.)

The case centers on CRISPR, the gene-editing technology that has reshaped the frontiers of biology and biotechnology. Agilent owns patents that claim chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) designed to improve stability and performance in CRISPR-Cas systems. Synthego filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition asserting that the patents were unpatentable. The Board found all claims unpatentable, relying on a 2014 publication by Pioneer Hi-Bred that disclosed similar modified gRNAs. Agilent appealed.

Agilent challenged the Board’s finding that the prior art was enabling, arguing that Pioneer Hi-Bred merely proposed a research plan without demonstrating which specific modifications would yield functional gRNAs. Agilent emphasized that the reference lacked working examples and disclosed numerous nonfunctional sequences, contending that a skilled artisan would not have been able to identify a successful embodiment without undue experimentation. It also argued that the nascent state of CRISPR technology in 2014 compounded the unpredictability, making the reference non-enabling. In support, Agilent relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, where the Supreme Court invalidated a broad genus claim for failing to enable its full scope.

The Federal Circuit was not persuaded. The Court drew a clear distinction between enablement under § 112 (which governs patent validity) and enablement under § 102 (which governs anticipation). The Court explained that the bar is lower for the latter, and that a prior art reference need only enable a single embodiment within the scope of the claim. While Amgen involved § 112, the Court emphasized that this case turned on § 102, where the standard is less demanding.

The Federal Circuit grounded this distinction in both the statutory text and the underlying purpose of the respective provisions. Statutorily, § 112 requires that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to “make and use” the invention. Section 102, by contrast, contains no such requirement. This divergence reflects a difference in purpose: § 112 ensures that the patentee does not claim more than they have taught, thereby preventing overbroad monopolies. As the Supreme Court explained in Amgen, “[t]he more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable.” But the Federal Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Amgen was rooted in the patentee’s burden to support the full scope of a genus claim under § 112. That concern, the Court explained, does not apply in the § 102 context, where the question is not how much the prior art claims, but whether it teaches enough for a skilled artisan to practice at least one embodiment without undue [...]

Continue Reading

Radio Silence Alone Doesn’t Prove Equitable Estoppel Defense

by Dexter Hamilton | Jun 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment grant based on an equitable estoppel defense, finding that the accused infringer failed to show that the patent owner’s silence or inaction influenced the decision to migrate to the accused system. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 23-2267 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.)

In 1998, Fraunhofer licensed patents related to satellite radio to WorldSpace International Network. This license was exclusive, with the right to sublicense. However, Fraunhofer also began a collaboration with XM Satellite Radio to develop satellite radio and required that XM obtain a sublicense from WorldSpace. XM ultimately launched a “high-band” satellite radio system. In 2008, XM joined Sirius Satellite Radio, to form Sirius XM (SXM). Sirius Satellite Radio had its own “low-band” system. The low- and high-band systems were incompatible, so SXM investigated which system it would use eventually, and it ultimately decided to shift toward the high-band system.

Meanwhile, WorldSpace filed for bankruptcy in 2008. In 2010, Fraunhofer, in its view, terminated its licensing agreement with WorldSpace. In 2011, XM formally merged with SXM. It is disputed whether SXM was licensed to the asserted patents after these events, but regardless, Fraunhofer remained silent until 2015, when it notified SXM that it believed that because its agreement with WorldSpace was supposedly terminated in 2010, the rights in the asserted patents had reverted to Fraunhofer, and thus SXM was not licensed and was infringing. Fraunhofer filed suit. However, the district court found that because of Fraunhofer’s silence, Fraunhofer was equitably estopped from bringing the patent infringement claims against SXM. Fraunhofer appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. There are three requirements for a successful equitable estoppel defense:

The patentee must engage in misleading conduct leading the accused infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee does not intend to assert its patent against the accused infringer.
The accused infringer must rely on that conduct.
As a result of that reliance, the accused infringer must be in a position such that it would be materially prejudiced if the patentee was allowed to proceed with its infringement action.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Fraunhofer’s refusal to raise the issue of potential infringement from 2010 until 2015, despite asserting that it reacquired the rights to the asserted patents in 2010, was misleading conduct. Fraunhofer knew that SXM’s product may have infringed the asserted patents and had previously required SXM to obtain a license to those patents. Fraunhofer also had built allegedly infringing features. Thus, it was reasonable for SXM to infer that Fraunhofer would not bring a claim against SXM.

However, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court on the issue of reliance. To show reliance, the Court explained that SXM must have established “that it at least considered Fraunhofer’s silence or inaction and that such consideration influenced its decision to migrate to the accused high-band system.” The evidence did not indisputably establish influence over SXM’s [...]

Continue Reading