IP UPDATE

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

Jurisdiction Affirmed: Trademark Ripples Reach US Shores

by Sydney E. McDermott | Jun 18, 2025 | Trademarks

Addressing for the first time the issue of whether a foreign intellectual property holding company is subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal and determined that the holding company, which had sought and obtained more than 60 US trademark registrations, had sufficient contacts with the US to support exercise of personal jurisdiction. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Polygroup Macau Ltd., Case No. 23-114 (11th Cir. June. 10, 2025) (Rosenbaum, Lagoa, Wilson, JJ.)

Polygroup Macau is an intellectual property holding company registered and headquartered in the British Virgin Islands. Jekyll Island is a Georgia entity that operates the Summer Waves Water Park and owns a federally registered trademark for the words SUMMER WAVES. In 2021, Jekyll Island discovered that Polygroup Macau had registered nearly identical SUMMER WAVES marks. After Polygroup Macau asked to buy Jekyll Island’s domain name, summerwaves.com, Jekyll Island sued Polygroup Macau for trademark infringement and to cancel Polygroup Macau’s marks. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that “the ‘causal connection’ between Polygroup Macau’s activities in the United States and Jekyll Island’s trademark claims was too ‘attenuated’ to support personal jurisdiction.” Jekyll Island appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether personal jurisdiction was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), also known as the national long-arm statute. Rule 4(k)(2) allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants that have enough contacts with the US as a whole, but not with a single state, to support personal jurisdiction. To establish personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), a plaintiff must show that:

Its claim arises under federal law.
The defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction.
“[E]xercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.”

The parties agreed that the first two elements were satisfied; the only dispute was whether the exercise of jurisdiction was consistent with due process.

The Eleventh Circuit noted that in the patent context, the Federal Circuit determined that a foreign defendant that “sought and obtained a property interest from a U.S. agency has purposefully availed itself of the laws of the United States.” The Eleventh Circuit found that a trademark registration is even stronger than patent rights because a “trademark registrant must show that he is already using the mark in U.S. commerce to identify and distinguish goods or intends to soon.” Polygroup Macau had more than 60 registrations and allowed other companies and customers to use those marks, which was enough to establish that it had sought out the benefits afforded under US law.

Additionally, while Polygroup Macau did not license its trademark rights, it permitted other related companies to use the SUMMER WAVES trademark to identify their products. Products marked with Polygroup Macau’s registered mark were sold in the US through dozens of retailers. Although there were no formal written agreements, the Eleventh Circuit found that Polygroup Macau exercised some degree of control [...]

Continue Reading