You searched for Trademark appeal | Page 10 of 81

Results for "Trademark appeal"

Personal jurisdiction: Are cease-and-desist letters enough?

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Apr 30, 2026 | Trademarks

In a decision clarifying how certain pre litigation enforcement efforts can establish personal jurisdiction, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Lanham Act and tortious interference claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that cease and desist letters sent into the jurisdiction satisfied the minimum contacts requirement and did not offend due process. Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Case No. 24-10293 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Luck, Lagoa, Abudu, JJ.)

Frida Kahlo and Frida Kahlo Investments (collectively, Kahlo) manage and license a portfolio of trademarks and publicity rights associated with the artist Frida Kahlo. Kahlo sued Familia Kahlo and Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo (collectively, Pinedo) alleging tortious interference and Lanham Act violations arising from Pinedo’s efforts to halt a traveling Frida Kahlo exhibition and related merchandise.

Central to the dispute were cease and desist letters sent by Pinedo to Kahlo’s Florida based business partners. The letters asserted that Pinedo held superior rights to Frida Kahlo’s name, likeness, and trademarks and threatened legal action if the recipients continued their involvement with Kahlo. Kahlo alleged those claims were false and caused business partners to withdraw or hesitate, disrupting Kahlo’s licensing relationships.

Kahlo filed suit in Florida. Pinedo moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Florida’s corporate shield doctrine protected Pinedo from jurisdiction and that, in any event, Pinedo lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. Kahlo appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding first that the corporate shield doctrine did not bar jurisdiction over Pinedo. The Court focused on the language of the cease and desist letters, which expressly identified Pinedo as the “heiress of the painter Frida Kahlo” and stated that the letters were sent “in our capacity as representatives of Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo.” The Court found that those representations showed that Maria Pinedo was acting in her personal capacity, not merely as a corporate agent. As a result, the corporate shield doctrine, which can protect corporate officers from jurisdiction based solely on acts performed for a corporation, did not apply. Because the doctrine was inapplicable, Pinedo was subject to Florida’s long arm statute, which permits jurisdiction where a nonresident commits a tortious act outside the state that causes injury within Florida.

The Eleventh Circuit next addressed whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction would comport with due process. The Court answered in the affirmative, explaining that Pinedo intentionally directed conduct into Florida by sending cease and desist letters to Florida entities. The alleged tortious interference claims arose directly from those communications, satisfying the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit also found purposeful availment because Pinedo plausibly alleged an intentional tort, the letters were expressly sent to Florida entities, and it was reasonable for Pinedo to anticipate having to defend itself in Florida based on its actions.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Pinedo failed to make a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and [...]

Continue Reading

Patent disclosure erases trade secret protection

by Hannah Hurley | Apr 30, 2026 | Patents, Trade Secrets

Addressing the boundary between patent disclosures and trade secret protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s findings of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper inventorship, concluding that the asserted “trade secrets” were generally known and therefore not protectable under California law. The Court affirmed, however, a $1 million statutory damages award for trademark counterfeiting. International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case Nos. 25 1580; 1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

International Medical Devices, Menova International, and Dr. James Elist (collectively, the plaintiffs) manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile implant. The plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell and associated individuals and entities after Cornell attended a Penuma® surgical training session under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and later helped develop a competing implant. The plaintiffs asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the NDA, trademark counterfeiting based on unauthorized use of the Penuma® mark, and invalidity of two cosmetic implant patents for failure to name Elist as an inventor.

A jury found for the plaintiffs on all claims. After a bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded more than $17 million in trade secret and exemplary damages, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded $1 million in statutory damages for counterfeiting. Cornell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the trade secret verdict in its entirety, concluding that none of the asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law. The Court concluded that the alleged technical trade secrets were disclosed in publicly available patents and thus were “generally known” as a matter of law.

In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that “that which is disclosed in a patent cannot be a trade secret.” Once information enters the public domain through patent disclosures, it cannot later be reclaimed as confidential business information through trade secret law.

The plaintiffs’ remaining alleged trade secret (a list of surgical instruments) fared no better. The Federal Circuit found that the list had been emailed to the defendants without any confidentiality designation or obligation, defeating any claim that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy.

Because the plaintiffs failed to identify any confidential information beyond the alleged trade secrets, the Federal Circuit also reversed the breach of contract verdict. The NDA expressly excluded information that was “generally available to the public,” and the Court found that an NDA cannot transform public domain information into protected confidential material.

The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion on trademark counterfeiting, however, and affirmed the jury’s finding and the $1 million statutory damages award. The Court explained that the evidence showed that Cornell had advertised and offered Penuma® implants without authorization. Cornell argued that the Penuma® mark was registered only for goods, not services, and therefore could not support a counterfeiting claim tied to surgical procedures. The Court rejected that argument, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Cornell offered the Penuma® implant itself as a good, not merely a medical service.

Finally, the Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading

How ex parte is ex parte reexam?

by Lisette Donewald | Apr 16, 2026 | Patents

Under a new procedure, announced in an Official Gazette Notice dated April 1, 2026, patent owners may now provide input before the United States Patent and Trademark Office decides whether to initiate an ex parte reexamination proceeding. Previously, while patent owners could participate after reexamination was ordered, they had no opportunity to submit arguments before the Office determined whether a request raised a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). Under the new policy, patent owners may submit a limited pre-order paper to inform that threshold determination.

Ex parte reexamination is an administrative mechanism that allows third parties to challenge patent validity outside of court. Unlike inter partes review and post-grant review – both adjudicated by Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges – ex parte reexaminations are handled by the Central Reexamination Unit and initiation there turns on whether or not the request raises an SNQ.

The new procedure introduces an optional patent owner pre-order paper that must be filed within 30 days of service of the reexam request, with no extensions available. The submission is limited to 30 pages and must focus on why the cited prior art does not raise an SNQ. Supporting declarations are permitted and do not count toward the page limit, but incorporation by reference is not allowed.

The notice also places important limits on the scope of these submissions. The patent owner’s paper must be directed only to the issues raised in the request and should not address matters outside that scope. For example, the Office indicates that arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are not part of the SNQ determination and therefore should not be included.

Requesters have limited ability to respond to a patent owner’s pre-order paper. While responses are not ordinarily permitted, a requester may petition to file a reply (limited to 10 pages). Any such reply must be filed within 15 days of service of the patent owner’s paper and requires payment of a fee.

These changes may shift the dynamics of ex parte reexamination practice. Historically, institution decisions were made based solely on the requester’s submission. The new procedure allows patent owners to present arguments earlier in the process, potentially assisting the Office in evaluating whether the request satisfies the SNQ standard before ordering reexamination.

For challengers, this change increases the importance of the initial request. Requests should be drafted with the expectation that the patent owner may respond before institution and that opportunities to reply will be limited.

“X” marks the spot: A single DuPont factor may be dispositive

by Tyler Jackson | Apr 16, 2026 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a trademark opposition, concluding that a single DuPont factor may be sufficient on its own to support a finding of no likelihood of confusion. Fuente Mktg. Ltd. v. Vaporous Techs., LLC, Case No. 24-1460 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2026) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Fuente Marketing and Vaporous Technologies both sell smoking related products. Fuente owns two standard character trademark registrations for the letter “X,” used in connection with cigars and related accessories. Vaporous sought to register a highly stylized design mark for use with its vaping products. The parties stipulated that Vaporous’ mark consisted of “an abstract stick figure consisting of two diagonal intersecting lines in the shape of a wide stylized letter ‘X’ with a shaded circle above.”

Fuente opposed the application at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), arguing that Vaporous’ mark was likely to cause confusion with Fuente’s “X” marks. Applying the DuPont factors, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board dismissed the opposition, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion. Fuente appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its ultimate likelihood of confusion determination de novo. Fuente challenged the Board’s analysis of two DuPont factors and argued that the Board improperly weighed the factors as a whole.

The Federal Circuit focused on the first DuPont factor, which evaluates the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. The court found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that this factor weighed heavily against a likelihood of confusion. The Federal Circuit agreed that consumers were more likely to perceive Vaporous’ mark as a stylized stick figure rather than the letter “X.” Unlike Fuente’s standard character mark, Vaporous’ design mark did not sound like the letter “X” as it had no pronunciation, and it incorporated prominent visual features – including a shaded circle comprising roughly one fifth of the mark – that were “not a minor or unnoticeable feature.”

Although the Board found that the remaining DuPont factors were neutral or favored Fuente, the Federal Circuit explained that it could “discern the Board’s path to dismissal” and affirmed the conclusion that in a case like this one DuPont factor was sufficient to establish dissimilarity between the marks. The Court emphasized that a likelihood of confusion analysis is a balancing test, and no minimum number of factors must favor one party.

Practice note: This decision reinforces that a single DuPont factor, particularly the dissimilarity of the marks, may be dispositive of likelihood of confusion. Parties should not assume that favorable findings on other factors can overcome a clear lack of similarity in appearance, sound, connotation, or commercial impression.

Settled means settled: Broad settlement release equates to res judicata

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Apr 16, 2026 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment decision, concluding that an intellectual property owner’s claims were barred by the scope of a settlement agreement resolving earlier state court litigation between the parties. Clear Touch Interactive, Inc. v. The Ockers Co. et al., Nos. 25-1304, 25-1374 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2026) (Wynn, Harris, JJ.) (Rushing, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Clear Touch, a designer and manufacturer of interactive technology products, entered into exclusive reseller agreements with information and communications technology reseller Ockers in 2014. After Clear Touch revoked Ockers’ exclusivity in 2017, Ockers began developing a competing product called TouchView. Clear Touch terminated Ockers as a reseller in 2019. The following year, Ockers filed suit in South Carolina state court alleging breach of contract and asserting various tort, trade secret, defamation, and civil conspiracy claims.

In June 2021, the parties resolved the state court action through a settlement agreement that dismissed the case with prejudice and included a broad mutual release of all claims and counterclaims – known or unknown – that were brought or could have been brought and that arose out of or related to the subject matter of the lawsuit.

Despite that settlement, Clear Touch filed a federal action one month later against Ockers, two of its officers (John J. Houser and Jason Houser), and TouchView Interactive, asserting claims for trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition based on the TouchView product. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the settlement agreement and the state court’s dismissal with prejudice barred Clear Touch’s claims.

The district court initially allowed some claims to proceed, including certain Lanham Act claims and claims against TouchView Interactive, but dismissed the remainder. After discovery, however, the court revisited the preclusion issue and granted summary judgment to Ockers and its officers, concluding that all of Clear Touch’s remaining claims were barred by res judicata. The district court also granted summary judgment to TouchView Interactive, finding it to be a shell entity with no commercial activity. Following a jury verdict in favor of Ockers, Clear Touch appealed.

Clear Touch challenged the district court’s res judicata determination, arguing both substantive error and procedural error under Rule 54(b). The Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments. Substantively, the Fourth Circuit held that Clear Touch failed to create a genuine dispute regarding the settlement agreement’s plain language or the parties’ mutual intent to release all claims, including those that could have been brought, arising from the same operative facts. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Clear Touch, the federal claims were precluded because they could have been asserted as counterclaims in the prior state court action, which had been dismissed with prejudice.

Procedurally, the Fourth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to revisit its earlier rulings. Rule 54(b) permits revision of nonfinal orders when new evidence emerges or a legal error becomes apparent. Here, supplemental evidence showed that Clear Touch [...]

Continue Reading

Muddy paws? Franchisor’s unclean hands precludes full equitable relief

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Apr 2, 2026 | Trade Secrets, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s partial denial of a franchisor’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the franchisor’s inequitable conduct barred broader injunctive relief, even where the franchisor showed a likelihood of success on certain claims. Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., Case No. 25-1638 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2026) (Gibbons, Larsen, Murphy, JJ.)

Fetch! sued several former franchisee locations for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation after the franchisees stopped paying royalties, downloaded client contact information, prepared transition plans, and continued operating competing businesses following termination of system access. Fetch! sought a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction to bar operation of the competing businesses, use of alleged trade secrets, infringement of its registered trademarks, and interference with its business relationships.

The district court granted limited relief prohibiting use of Fetch!’s trademarks and restricting communications with existing Fetch! franchisees but declined to enjoin the defendants from continuing to operate competing businesses. The court concluded that although Fetch! was likely to succeed on certain claims, equitable relief was limited by Fetch!’s own conduct, including evidence that it aggressively marketed and sold its “2.0” franchise model while obscuring material differences from its legacy “1.0” model, and that it cut off certain franchisees’ system access under disputed circumstances. Fetch! appealed.

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy and that equitable doctrines, including unclean hands, may independently bar relief. The Court agreed that the record supported a finding that Fetch!’s conduct in marketing and selling its 2.0 and managed-services franchises (particularly Fetch!’s removal of distinctions in disclosure materials and aggressive profitability representations) could constitute bad faith sufficient to deny broader injunctive relief.

The Sixth Circuit also addressed the three legacy 1.0 franchisees for which the district court had not applied unclean hands. Affirming on an alternative ground, the Court found that unclean hands likewise barred injunctive relief as to those defendants. The Court relied on evidence that Fetch! terminated or restricted their system access while they were current on payments and before they began operating competing businesses, and that Fetch! may have failed to comply with applicable state franchise law requirements governing notice and opportunity to cure.

Although it affirmed on unclean hands, the Sixth Circuit clarified aspects of its preliminary injunction jurisprudence:

It rejected the district court’s suggestion that a heightened showing of irreparable harm applies when claims are subject to arbitration, confirming that the traditional four-factor test governs.
It found that the district court erred in applying a clear-and-convincing standard for irreparable harm rather than the federal standard requiring a likelihood of irreparable injury.
It explained that competitive harms, such as loss of goodwill and customer relationships, can qualify as irreparable precisely because they are difficult to quantify.

Because Fetch!’s inequitable conduct supported denial of broader relief, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to enjoin the defendants’ competing operations while leaving in place the narrower [...]

Continue Reading

Too late to help: Inventorship fix fails to revive forfeited argument

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, concluding that the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 does not bar the application of forfeiture principles in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and that a patent owner that fails to timely raise an antedating theory during an IPR may forfeit reliance on a later corrected inventorship to resurrect that theory. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1173; -1174 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Implicit owns patents directed to content rendering that originally named Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley as co-inventors. Sonos filed IPR petitions against both patents, asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, primarily based on Janevski, which had an effective prior art date of December 11, 2001.

To avoid Janevski as prior art, Implicit argued that the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice before December 11, 2001. It contended that Balassanian and Bradley conceived of the inventions and collaborated with another engineer, Guy Carpenter, to implement the invention prior to December 2001. Implicit argued that Carpenter’s work inured to the benefit of the named inventors, thereby antedating Janevski. The Board rejected Implicit’s argument and found the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over Janevski. The Board found Implicit’s evidence insufficient to establish conception and communication of the invention by Carpenter in a manner that would support an earlier reduction to practice.

Following the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew addressing the Appointments Clause as applied to IPR proceedings, the case was remanded to permit Director review. While proceedings were ongoing, Implicit sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to add Carpenter as a co-inventor. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the request and issued certificates of correction in August 2022. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Board to determine what impact, if any, the corrections had on the prior final written decisions. The Board concluded that equitable doctrines, including forfeiture, precluded Implicit from relying on the corrected inventorship to advance a new antedating theory. Implicit appealed.

The appeal presented two principal questions:

Whether the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under § 256 forecloses application of forfeiture principles in an IPR proceeding.
Whether the Board abused its discretion in finding that Implicit forfeited its right to assert a new antedating theory based on corrected inventorship.

Implicit argued that § 256 contains no temporal limitation and that corrections operate retroactively, requiring the Board to revisit its unpatentability determinations once Carpenter was added as an inventor. Sonos and the USPTO countered that Implicit had litigated the IPRs on a single inventorship theory and waited until after adverse final written decisions to change course.

The Federal Circuit affirmed on both grounds.

First, the Federal Circuit found that forfeiture principles may apply notwithstanding the retroactive effect of § 256. Although [...]

Continue Reading

USPTO signals new emphasis on US manufacturing in IPR and PGR institution decisions

by Lauren Hong | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Memorandum on March 11, 2026, signaling that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board may place increased weight on domestic manufacturing activity and the interests of small businesses when deciding whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post grant review (PGR).

The America Invents Act (AIA) established IPR and PGR proceedings as mechanisms for challenging the validity of issued patents before the Board. In establishing the framework for institution decisions, the statute directs the USPTO Director to consider broader policy concerns, including the impact on the US economy, the integrity of the patent system, and the efficient administration of the USPTO.

The Memorandum highlights concerns regarding the decline of US manufacturing, particularly in the electronics and computer sectors. Citing government studies, the USPTO notes that the offshoring of key industries has contributed to economic and national security vulnerabilities. According to the USPTO, these developments bear directly on the Director’s statutory obligation to consider the economic effects of Board institution decisions.

While some stakeholders contend that IPR and PGR proceedings protect US manufacturers and small businesses from weak patents, the USPTO observed that many of the most frequent petitioners are large companies that report little domestic manufacturing activity and have not made meaningful investments in US production. According to the Memorandum, this data prompted the USPTO to question whether the current discretionary institution framework adequately accounts for the interests of companies that do invest in domestic manufacturing.

As a result, the USPTO announced that certain factors related to US manufacturing and small businesses may now inform discretionary institution determinations. The USPTO encourages parties to address these considerations explicitly in their discretionary briefing.

When evaluating whether to institute an IPR or PGR, the Director may consider:

Whether the products accused of infringement in parallel litigation are manufactured in the United States or tied to domestic manufacturing investments.
Whether the patent owner produces competing products in the US.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a small business that has been sued for patent infringement.

The Memorandum clarifies that manufacturing considerations are not limited to final assembly but may also encompass the production of components and situations in which products manufactured domestically are later processed abroad. For method claims, the relevant product for this analysis will be the device used to perform the claimed method.

These considerations apply to all to all IPRs and PGRs in which the due date for a patent owner discretionary brief has not yet elapsed.

Coiled in controversy: Summary judgment on Walker Process claim unwound

by Payton T. Thornton | Mar 12, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment on inequitable conduct and a Walker Process antitrust claim arising from allegations that a patent owner withheld material prior art during patent prosecution and sought to enforce the patents against a competitor in the coiled tubing market. Global Tubing v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes, Case Nos. 23-1882; -1883 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2026) (Taranto, Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

Global Tubing filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its coiled tubing product did not infringe Tenaris’ patents. After uncovering a document in discovery that it characterized as evidence that Tenaris attempted to withhold material information during patent prosecution, Global Tubing amended its complaint to assert inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud, alleging that Tenaris sought to use fraudulently obtained patents to monopolize the market. Following the completion of discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment of inequitable conduct to Global Tubing and summary judgment of no liability for Walker Process fraud to Tenaris. As to the Walker Process fraud claim, the court determined that because Tenaris was such a small market player, Global Tubing could not prove it had the market power sufficient to achieve a monopoly. Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Global Tubing, finding that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether the single most reasonable inference was that the inventor acted with specific intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), making summary judgment on inequitable conduct inappropriate.

Addressing the Walker Process fraud claim, the Federal Circuit likewise vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tenaris, finding that the record contained genuine disputes of material fact that precluded judgment as a matter of law. The Court explained that the evidence could support a finding that the inventor knowingly withheld a material prior art reference from the USPTO with intent to deceive, and that Global Tubing had raised a triable issue as to the first prong of its Walker Process claim: whether Tenaris obtained and enforced the patent through knowing and willful fraud on the USPTO.

Turning to the second prong of a Walker Process fraud claim (attempted monopolization), the Federal Circuit observed that the parties advanced competing definitions of the relevant market. The Court concluded that the district court erred by characterizing Tenaris as a small market participant with no dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power without first defining the relevant product and geographic markets or determining whether genuine disputes of material fact existed on those issues.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether Tenaris engaged in predatory or otherwise anticompetitive conduct. The Court noted that there may have been a triable issue regarding the appropriate date at which to measure Tenaris’ share of the relevant yet undefined market. Considering these unresolved factual questions, the Court [...]

Continue Reading

USPTO Director IPR institution discretion survives APA challenge

by Amol Parikh | Feb 26, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) framework for discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) is a general statement of policy, not a substantive rule, and therefore is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice‑and‑comment requirements.

The USPTO Director issued a trio of related instructions to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board for its exercise of delegated non-institution authority, addressing the common situation where the IPR petitioner and the patent owner are already involved in a district court litigation over the patent at issue. Two of the instructions were in the form of precedential Board decisions, which set forth six exclusive factors, weighing in favor or against institution, that the Board must assess. These instructions are generally referred to as the NHK-Fintiv instructions that, as Board precedent, bind only the Board and not the USPTO Director.

Several IPR petitioners argued that the Director’s instructions to the Board effectively bind the USPTO as an agency and thus should have been promulgated through formal rulemaking.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that institution decisions rest ultimately with the USPTO Director. The Court explained that while the NHK-Fintiv framework provides guidance on how that discretionary authority may be exercised, the Director retains the ability to depart from the framework in any given case. To that end, the guidance does not carry the force and effect of law and does not impose legally binding obligations on the agency or the public.

Practice note: The decision reinforces the Federal Circuit’s post‑Arthrex theme that the Director enjoys broad and largely unreviewable discretion at the IPR institution stage.

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS