United States: Federal Circuit Patent Updates - October 2018

Precedential Opinions

1. NATURAL ALTERNATIVES v. IANCU [OPINION] (2017-1962, 10/01/2018) (PROST, MOORE, and REYNA)

Prost, C.J. Affirming a PTAB inter partes reexamination decision rejecting patent claims as anticipated or obvious over the cited prior art, including a parent of the reexamined patent. The only issue on appeal was whether the reexamined patent was entitled to the priority date of one of the applicant's earlier applications. The Court held that the reexamined patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date because during prosecution the applicant had deleted its claim to the priority date of the earlier application.

2. WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2017-2265, 2017-2380, 09/28/2018) (PROST, BRYSON, and O'MALLEY)*

Prost, C.J. Reversing the district court's denial of Apple's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law that the accused products did not infringe. The Court agreed with Apple that no reasonable juror could have found infringement based on the evidence presented at trial. The case involved a microprocessor prediction technology to increase the accuracy of microprocessor speculation. The patent claims at issue require a prediction associated with a "particular [load] instruction." The Court held that there was no substantial evidence that Apple's accused processors, which associate predictions with groups of load instructions, satisfy the "particular" limitation under its plain meaning. The Court also held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Plaintiff's theory that, in Apple's accused products, a prediction is sometimes associated with a single load instruction. The Court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment that the patent was not invalid as anticipated.

*WilmerHale represented the Defendant-Appellant, Apple Inc.

3. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. v. ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY [OPINION] (2017-1555, 2017-1626, 09/28/2018) (LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and STOLL)

Stoll, J. Vacating a PTAB IPR decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable because the IPR was precluded by the time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Court held that the PTAB erred by evaluating the time bar with respect to a newly filed complaint, instead of an earlier complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice but that was filed more than one year before the IPR petition. The Court explained that there are no exceptions to the time bar for dismissed complaints. The Court also declined to review and remanded the PTAB's decision to sanction the petitioner for failure to timely disclose its changed corporate parentage, because the PTAB's decision, which did not quantify the amount of monetary sanctions, was not yet final.

4. GUST, INC. v. ALPHACAP VENTURES LLC [OPINION] (2017-2414, 09/28/2018) (WALLACH, LINN, and HUGHES)

Linn, J. Reversing an award of attorneys' fees to the defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the patent owner's counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings by making arguments on patent eligibility and venue, and by failing to resolve the litigation earlier than it did.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.