The Federal Circuit decides appeals addressing patent law, government contracts, trade disputes, tax appeals, suits against the federal government, veterans’ benefits, and federal employment cases. Federal Circuitry takes a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit. Our <a href="/statistics" target="_self">Federal Circuit Statistics</a> empirically analyze appeal timing, outcomes, and other quantifiable aspects of the Court.  Our <a href="/trackers/en-banc-tracker" target="_self">En Banc Tracker</a> shows pending and past petitions where the Court has called for a response. Our <a href="/trackers/substantive-orders-tracker" target="_self">Substantive Order Tracker</a> allows you to search for less-discussed and hard-to-find orders that affect practice before the Court. Check back weekly for <a href="/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit" target="_self">Last Week in the Federal Circuit</a> and monthly for our <a href="/topics/oral-argument-recap" target="_self">Oral Argument Recap</a>.<h2>About Morrison Foerster's Appellate + Supreme Court Practice</h2>Morrison Foerster’s market-leading <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/appellate-supreme-court.html">Appellate and Supreme Court practice</a> wins appeals with deep strategic thinking, clear writing, and forceful oral advocacy. Our work spans the Supreme Court of the United States, every federal court of appeals, and state appellate courts in California, New York, and elsewhere. And we handle appeals in every area of law—from intellectual property to class actions, arbitration to antitrust, environmental law to ERISA. We are consistently ranked as one of the top appellate and Supreme Court practices in the country by Chambers USA and Legal 500 USA, and our practice has been named to the National Law Journal’s Appellate Hot List multiple times.<h2>About Morrison Foerster's Patent Litigation Practice</h2>We are a global <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/patent-litigation.html">IP litigation</a> powerhouse, dedicated to fiercely protecting innovation in high-stakes and complex patent litigation matters. While we are skilled at resolving disputes short of trial, some cases do see the inside of a courtroom. When they do, our trial lawyers stand out for their superb knowledge of patent law, experience with judges in high-volume patent venues, facility with explaining cutting-edge technologies to juries, and history defending against patent assertion entities and other habitual plaintiffs. From cross-border matters and multiparty disputes to global litigation management and NPE litigations, we develop novel solutions to protecting and enforcing some of the most prized patents in the world.<h2>About Morrison Foerster</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

federal-circuitry-blog-promo-tile.jpg

Federal Circuitry

Brian Matsui co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Brian is a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals. Brian has a nationwide appellate practice. He has argued many cases in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country, winning appeals involving federal preemption, securities litigation and enforcement, consumer class actions, and intellectual property. He has led appeals in the D.C., Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits. His arguments include significant victories in class action appeals and in appeals for leading financial services companies, with multiple victories in the Ninth Circuit, where he clerked. Brian recently has gone five for six when representing appellants, including a precedential victory in the Ninth Circuit in a licensing dispute concerning alleged patent misuse. He also argued and won a D.C. Circuit appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the retroactivity of part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of Brian’s win, the SEC had to change its enforcement practices against certain securities industry professionals.Clients frequently turn to Brian for his substantial experience with appeals in the Federal Circuit, praising him as “an invaluable advocate in patent matters” (Chambers USA). Brian has won 13 of his last 15 appeals in that Court. His arguments before the Federal Circuit include winning appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. He has handled appeals in a myriad of industries, including mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, and software.Brian also plays a key role on trial teams, advising clients on both critical legal issues and appellate preservation. He recently argued and prevailed against a summary judgment invalidity motion in a case involving Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s revolutionary antibody recycling technology, which ultimately led to a $775 million settlement on the eve of trial for Chugai.A former law clerk for the United States Supreme Court, Brian has authored many briefs in that Court, including on important constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. He often represents clients’ interests in amicus briefs in significant Supreme Court cases affecting the business community.Leading publications have recognized Brian for his appellate skills. The Legal 500 US recommends him for appellate litigation, and the National Law Journal named Brian a “Minority 40 Under 40.”Brian also dedicates significant time to pro bono matters. He argued and won two significant appeals—in the Second and Ninth Circuits—obtaining reversals of judgments that had denied private rights of action under the Child Welfare Act in precedential decisions. Brian also led the Morrison Foerster team who co-counseled a successful Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s imposition of a “life without the possibility of parole” sentence to a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime.For years, Brian chaired the ABA’s seven-person Standing Committee for Amicus Curiae Briefs. He served on the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s amicus committee and co-chaired the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s amicus committee. Brian served as an appellate lawyer representative for the Ninth Circuit. Brian also serves on the board of directors for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.Before entering private practice, Brian clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He also clerked for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer in the Ninth Circuit and Judge David F. Levi in the Eastern District of California.While in law school, Brian served as managing editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.<h4>Representative Oral Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1260_02102023.mp3" target="_blank">SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University </a>(Fed. Cir.) Prevailed in a precedential decision reversing the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA) that subjected patents post-dating the Act to pre-AIA interference proceedings. The decision revived five of SNIPR’s patents related to CRISPR technology.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-broadcom-corporation-v-renesas-matsui" target="_blank">Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation</a> (12:40) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed multiple appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision and several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to an ITC investigation initiated by Broadcom involving systems-on-chip powering automobile infotainment systems.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210706-cr-bard-v-medline-industries" target="_self">C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.</a> (0:45) (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness.</li><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=21-1745_03102022.mp3" target="_blank">Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc.</a> (14:30) (Fed. Cir.) Secured a complete victory in appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board that all challenged patent claims were unpatentable.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200515-william-paulus-v-ocera-therapeutics-inc.html" target="_self">William Paulus v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc.</a> (13:25) (9th Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal in a putative shareholder class action involving a tender offer.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200410-kurtz-v-costco.html" target="_blank">Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation </a>(9:23) (2d Cir.) Successfully petitioned for review of a class certification decision, then argued and obtained a remand for the district court to reconsider its certification decision and an eventual reversal on an injunctive class certification decision.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161117-gregory-bartko-v-sec.html" target="_self">Gregory Bartko v. SEC</a> (0:53) (D.C. Cir.) Successfully argued and obtained precedential ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not retroactively apply Dodd-Frank’s industry-wide sanctions on securities professionals for certain securities violations.</li></ul>

matsui_brian_blog_150x150.png

matsui_brian_common_640x280.jpg

matsui_brian_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

matsui_brian_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

matsui_brian_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For nearly 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience in patent appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has argued more than 10 times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Brian excels at applying significant legal principles to complex technologies in a way that distills them for the Court. He has done so for companies in a myriad of industries, including mobile device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, memory manufacturers, movie studios, and software companies.

Brian Matsui

Seth Lloyd, a member of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, has been counsel in more than a hundred appeals in federal and state courts nationwide. Seth has presented oral arguments in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Federal Circuit, as well as in the New Jersey Appellate Division.Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has authored successful briefs for both patentees and defendants on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to pharmaceuticals to computer hardware and software. His practice includes appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. Seth also has argued five times in the Federal Circuit. His winning arguments include a successful reversal of three PTAB decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Seth is co-chair of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Administrative Law & Regulatory Committee. And he is an Editor of Morrison Foerster’s <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/" target="_blank">Federal Circuitry</a> blog, which takes a data-driven approach to analyzing the Federal Circuit and its decisions.Seth regularly practices in the United States Supreme Court. He has drafted petitions and amicus briefs at the certiorari stage, as well as party and amicus briefs at the merits stage. Seth also moots members of the bar for Supreme Court arguments through the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute and is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court.Seth’s clients and peers recognize his expertise. Legal 500 named Seth a Key Lawyer; Super Lawyers called him a Rising Star; and Best Lawyers in America added him to its Ones to Watch list, all for appellate practice. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he worked on two successful certiorari petitions and one successful merits case through Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.Seth also holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in electrical engineering from Stanford University. During his graduate studies, he received the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, published 10 peer-reviewed articles, and co-invented the subject matter of five U.S. patents.<h4>Appellate Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-renesas-electronics-v-broadcom-corporation" target="_self">Renesas Electronics Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.</a> (00:10) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to electronic device claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170609-netlist-inc-v-diablo-technologies" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.</a> (02:56) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won reversal for owner of computer memory patents in appeals from three consolidated inter partes reviews</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200610-google-llc-v-netlist-inc" target="_self">Google LLC v. Netlist, Inc.</a> (13:15) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for owner of computer memory patents in consolidated appeals from decade-long reexamination</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220309-apple-inc-v-mph-technologies" target="_self">Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy</a> (00:16) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to computer security claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180808-netlist-inc-v-sandisk-llc" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. SanDisk LLC</a> (01:53) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for patent owner in consolidated appeals raising APA challenges to inter partes review decisions</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/201026-nicole-k-v-stigdon" target="_self">Nicole K. v. Stigdon</a> (00:16) (7th Cir.) Argued for children in Indiana foster care raising constitutional due process claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200306-strike-3-holdings" target="_self">Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe</a> (21:40) (D.C. Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending an order refusing a subpoena to unmask an internet subscriber’s identity</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161118-harris-v-mangum" target="_self">Harris v. Mangum</a> (00:02) (9th Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending indigent prisoner’s right to a guardian ad litem</li></ul><h4>Additional Representative Matters</h4><ul><li>SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University (Fed. Cir.) Revived five SNIPR patents related to CRISPR technology after prevailing in a precedential decision that reversed the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA), under which post-AIA patents could be subjected to pre-AIA interference proceedings</li><li>Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir.) Successfully defended ITC’s determination of no Section 337 violation in case involving multiple patents directed to system-on-chip technology for automobile infotainment systems</li><li>Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) Successfully beat back defendant’s push for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description on pharmaceutical genus claims, ultimately helping to secure a $775 million settlement for the patent owner</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal of district court judgment of non-infringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving Bard’s infringement case on three patents</li><li>Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (3d Cir.) Successfully defended trial victory for breach of patent licensing agreement and further won judgment entitling Washington University to prejudgment interest</li><li>Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal for Nevro of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li>Federal National Mortgage Association v. Zabriskie (9th Cir.) Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li>Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (S. Ct.) Represented U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others as amici supporting respondent in unanimous affirmance of Fair Debt Collection Act decision</li><li>BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur for petitioner of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness for patents to medical device technology</li><li>Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc. (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal of securities fraud case for failure to adequately plead falsity</li><li>Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured dismissal because asserted patents claimed unpatentable subject matter</li><li>Sam Francis Foundation v. Christie’s, Inc. (S. Ct.) Successfully preserved Sotheby’s en banc win at the Ninth Circuit based on the dormant Commerce Clause</li><li>Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured total victory of noninfringement for Genentech</li><li>Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. (New York Appellate Division, First Department) Secured reversal in major shareholder challenge to corporate acquisition</li><li>V.L. v. E.L. (S. Ct.) As counsel for children’s guardian ad litem, secured reversal of Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to grant full faith and credit to Georgia judgment recognizing lesbian mother as legal parent</li></ul>

lloyd_seth_blog_150x150.png

lloyd_seth_common_640x280.jpg

lloyd_seth_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lloyd_seth_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lloyd_seth_social_600x600.jpg

Seth Lloyd is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice with broad experience briefing and arguing appeals. Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has been a primary author of successful briefs on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to chemistry to computer hardware and software. He also has successfully argued multiple times in that Court, including obtaining reversal of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School and also holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University.

Seth Lloyd is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice with broad experience briefing and arguing appeals. Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has been a primary author of successful briefs on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to chemistry to computer hardware and software. He also has successfully argued multiple times in that Court, including obtaining reversal of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School and also holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University.

Seth Lloyd

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/statistics">Federal Circuit Statistics</a> empirically analyze quantifiable aspects of the Court. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/trackers/en-banc-tracker">En Banc Tracker</a> highlights pending and past petitions. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/trackers/substantive-orders-tracker">Substantive Order Tracker</a> allows you to search less-discussed orders. Check back weekly for <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit" target="_self">Last Week in the Federal Circuit</a> and monthly for our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/oral-argument-recap" target="_self">Oral Argument Recap</a>. Follow us on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/Fed_Circuitry" target="_blank">@Fed_Circuitry</a>.

fed-circuitry-welcome.jpg

fed-circuitry-welcome

Announcements

Welcome to Federal Circuitry

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

MoFo Life Sciences

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contract Insights

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog, covering federal circuit statistics, pending & past petitions, order tracking, and more.

Federal Circuitry

Federal Circuit Blog - News & Statistics | Federal Circuitry

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Federal Circuitry Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Federal Circuitry. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Processing All Things Federal Circuit

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Federal Circuitry- Statistics

Statistics

Blog - Trackers

Many petitions for rehearing are filed; only the smallest handful are granted. Rather than track every filed petition, we track those that have a chance. Our database tracks petitions for rehearing once the Federal Circuit has called for a response (CFR). A CFR is the first real indication that the Court might have interest in the petition, as it indicates that at least one judge on the Court may be taking a second look. Our En Banc Tracker allows you to see the amount of time it takes for various cases to get a CFR, and you can sift through the data to see what types of cases have captured the potential attention of the Court. Our data goes back to January 2020.<div data-reactroot=""><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameBorder="0" height="2350" width="100%" src="https://public.tableau.com/views/RehearingCFRsandSubstantiveOrders/RehearingCFRs?:language=en&amp;:display_count=y&amp;:origin=viz_share_link&amp;:showVizHome=no&amp;:embed=yes&amp;:showShareOptions=false"></iframe><style media="(min-width:48.0625em)">#embed-wrapper-204954215{padding: 0 0 2350px;}</style></div>

En Banc Tracker

Many orders from the Federal Circuit are not reported but can affect practice and procedure before the Court. We track and reproduce those orders here, highlighting ones that may be of significant interest to those who have cases before the Federal Circuit.<div data-reactroot=""><iframe src="https://public.tableau.com/views/RehearingCFRsandSubstantiveOrders/SubstantiveOrders?:language=en&amp;:display_count=y&amp;:origin=viz_share_link&amp;:showVizHome=no&amp;:embed=yes&amp;:showShareOptions=false" width="100%" height="3030" allowfullscreen="" frameBorder="0"></iframe></div>

Substantive Orders Tracker

Trackers

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Brian R. Matsui

More

Seth W. Lloyd

What Makes a Case Exceptional?

Fifth Circuit Weighs In on Transfer Factors In High-Tech IP Case

Recently in the Federal Circuit: More on Indefiniteness in IPRs

Recently in the Federal Circuit: Reasonable Expectation of Success May Not Be So Spooky After All

Recently in the Federal Circuit: Broadening Claims in IPRs

It has been another steamy August week here in Washington and at the Federal Circuit, with eleven new opinions fresh off the press.  Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions:  5Non-precedential opinions:  6 Rule 36:  2 Longest pending case from argument:  Tie between <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2322.opinion.8-19-2021_1822008.pdf" target="_blank">Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.</a>, No. 20-2322 and <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2344.opinion.8-19-2021_1821952.pdf" target="_blank">Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.</a>, No. 20-2344 (73 days)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36):<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1708.opinion.8-18-2021_1821304.pdf" target="_blank">NuVasive, Inc. v. Hirshfeld</a>, No. 20-2321 (68 days)Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1315.opinion.8-17-2021_1820379.pdf" target="_blank">Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.</a>, No. 20-1315.Panel: Judges Newman, Lourie, and Dyk, with Judge Dyk writing the opinionYou should read this case if: you have a case involving the authentication of prior art from the internet.Have you heard of the Wayback Machine?  If not, this digital archive of the internet has been cataloguing webpages since 1996.  Have you wondered whether courts would consider archived pages retrieved from this service as authentic prior art?  This week, the Federal Circuit endorsed the practice of patent examiners who rely on the Wayback Machine as evidence of web article’s public availability.Ironburg sued Valve Corp. for patent infringement over the Valve’s “Steam Controller.”  Valve challenged Ironburg’s patents in two inter partes reviews.  In both reviews, Valve asserted as prior art a printout of an online magazine article reviewing an Xbox360 controller.  This so-called “Burns article” was published in 2010, three years before the priority date of the patents-in-suit.  Valve’s printout of the article, however, was dated after the priority date.  Despite Valve’s request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board compare the printout with copies of the Burns article included in the prosecution histories of related Ironburg patents, the Board declined to consider Valve’s printout as prior art as it had not been authenticated.The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the Board had “an obligation” to compare Valve’s printout to the Burns article included in the submitted prosecution histories.  The Court explained that “[a]uthentication through comparison is routine.”  Further, a comparison of Valve’s ten-page printout with the nine-page copy of the Burns article from the submitted prosecution histories is “not burdensome.”  Conducting the comparison itself, the Court concluded that these were “substantially the same.”  The only difference was the date, which did not bear on the subject matter of the disclosure.The Federal Circuit also rejected Ironburg’s argument that, in the alternative, the Burns article is not prior art because it was not “publicly accessible.”  The Federal Circuit found overwhelming evidence of public accessibility based on several factors:  (1) an inventor of the challenged patents had submitted a declaration during prosecution of related patents stating that he facilitated the publication of the Burns article for promotional purposes; (2) patent examiners confirmed during those related prosecutions that the Burns article was published by a date that was before the priority date of the challenged patents; (3) the applicants during those related prosecutions, including a named inventor on the challenged patents, did not dispute the status of the Burns article as prior art; and (4) a patent examiner had found the Burns article through an internet search.  Although the Board did not address this argument, the Federal Circuit held that “overwhelming evidence” in the record precludes the Board from finding that the Burns article is not prior art.The Federal Circuit specifically noted the evidence of availability based on the “Wayback Machine.”  The Court noted that, according to Patent Office practice, examiners may use the Wayback Machine “as a source of information to determine when a Web reference was first made available to the public.”  The Court also observed that several district courts—including the Northern and Central Districts of California and the Northern District of Florida—have similarly taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages retrieved from the Wayback Machine and relied on the accessibility dates given by the Wayback Machine.  The Federal Circuit endorsed this approach, which may open the door for more district courts to follow the same practice going forward.

tan_nate_blog_150x150.png

tan_nate_common_640x280.jpg

tan_nate_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tan_nate_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tan_nate_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Nate Tan is a member of the firm’s Litigation  Group with a focus on intellectual property.
Nate earned his J.D. from  Harvard Law School, where he was awarded the Dean’s Scholar Prize in  Intellectua

Nate Tan

08_23_joystick_videogame_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 16-20): Controlling for Authentication

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 16-20): Controlling for Authentication

08_23_joystick_videogame_blog_v1

It has been another steamy August week here in Washington and at the Federal Circuit, with eleven new opinions fresh off the press.  Below we provide our usual 

Last Week in the Federal Circuit

Although things often slow down in Washington in the August heat and humidity, that wasn’t the case this past week for the Federal Circuit. All told, the Court issued 5 precedential opinions and ruled in 17 cases. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions:  5Non-precedential opinions:  9Rule 36: 3Longest pending case from argument:  Tie between <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1543.opinion.8-12-2021_1818061.pdf" target="_blank">PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC,</a> No. 20-1543 and <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1566.opinion.8-12-2021_1818056.pdf" target="_blank">In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC</a>, No. 20-1566 (164 days)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36):<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1237.opinion.8-11-2021_1817421.pdf" target="_blank">Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC</a>, No. 20-1237 (33 days)Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1237.opinion.8-11-2021_1817421.pdf" target="_blank">Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC</a>, No. 2020-1237Panel: Chief Judge Moore and Judges Linn and Chen, with Chief Judge Moore writing the opinionYou should read this case if: you have a matter involving claim construction disputes about intrinsic and extrinsic evidenceWhen the Supreme Court first issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., many wondered whether the aftershocks of the decision might prompt the Federal Circuit to give more deference to claim constructions that relied on extrinsic evidence. But Teva has proven to be more of a minor tremor than a seismic shakeup in how the Federal Circuit treats appeals with claim construction disputes, particularly when the intrinsic evidence is clear. In our case of the week, the Federal Circuit reinforces the primacy of intrinsic over extrinsic evidence when construing claims.This week’s case involves patents directed to seismometers containing earth and seismic sensors called geophones. The claims require a “geophone internally fixed within [the] housing” and the dispute centered around what “fixed” means. As the Federal Circuit explained, the Board “found, based entirely on extrinsic evidence, that ‘fixed’ had a special meaning in the relevant art at the time of the invention:  ‘not gimbaled.’” Based on that evidence about outside-the-patent meaning, the Board concluded that that the claims' use of “fixed” meant the claims covered only a special type of non-gimbaled geophones.On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed. Even if “fixed” had some special meaning outside the patent, the Board erred because it improperly relied on extrinsic evidence in the face of contrary intrinsic evidence. The Federal Circuit concluded that the intrinsic evidence was clear that “fixed” should be given its plain and ordinary non-technical meaning, i.e, attached or fastened, and there was “no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence.”The Federal Circuit explained that all three sources of intrinsic evidence—the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history—supported its ordinary-meaning construction. First, the claims’ juxtaposition of “fixed” next to “within” indicated that “fixed” referred to the geophone’s position relative to the housing, not the type of geophone (e.g., gimbaled or non-gimbaled geophones).Second, the specification repeatedly touted the practical advantages of having the geophone mounted or located within the electronic compartments of the seismometer. The specification distinguished prior-art examples that used separate compartments for the geophone and electronics, which required external connecting cables that were expensive and difficult to handle and maintain in extreme geographic environments. Also, the specification disclosed that any conventional type of geophone could be used. It never specified whether any exemplary embodiment included a gimbaled or a non-gimbaled geophone, despite specifying whether other components were gimbaled (such as a gimbaled clock).Finally, the prosecution history was consistent with construing “fixed” to mean mounted or fastened rather than “not gimbaled.” As an initial matter, the Federal Circuit rejected Magseis’s contention that Seabed waived reliance on the prosecution history by failing to raise it before the Board. Even though Seabed’s appeal arguments based on the prosecution history were new, the Court held they were proper because the prosecution history was in the record and Seabed was arguing for the same claim scope on appeal as it had argued before the Board. And the Court concluded that that prosecution history supported Seabed’s construction. The applicant and examiner repeatedly discussed the term “fixed” in the context of how the geophone was oriented and where it was located relative to seismometer compartments rather than using “fixed” to mean the type of geophone—be it gimbaled or non-gimbaled. Thus, the Federal Circuit found that the prosecution history supported interpreting the claims according the common usage of the word fixed.

Dr. Wesley Chen is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison & Foerster’s San Diego office.
Wesley received his J.D. from the University of Southern California, where he served as presiden

Wesley WL Chen

Wesley Chen

08_16_federalcircuitry_tsunami_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 9-13): The Dangers of Relying Solely on Extrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 9-13): The Dangers of Relying Solely on Extrinsic Evidence for Claim Construction

08_16_federalcircuitry_tsunami_blog_v1

Once again, the Federal Circuit reiterates that the intrinsic record reigns supreme for claim construction

The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments next month. But we’ll have to see if those plans change. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions: 5Non-precedential opinions: 6Rule 36: 0Longest pending case from argument: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/18-1976.opinion.8-5-2021_1814836.pdf" target="_blank">GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.</a>, No. 18-1976 (163 days) (panel rehearing)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36): <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2221.opinion.8-4-2021_1814220.pdf" target="_blank">Shell Oil Company v. United States</a>, No. 20-2221 (54 days)Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2009.opinion.8-3-2021_1813505.pdf" target="_blank">Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C.,</a> No. 20-2009Panel: Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes, with Judge Hughes writing the opinionYou should read this case if: you have a case with a venue challengeThis week’s case of the week explores yet again what it takes to show a regular and established place of business for venue purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (we’ve discussed venue multiple times in past cases, for example, <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/Last-Week-in-the-Federal-Circuit-November-2-6-.html">here</a>, <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/Last-Week-in-the-Federal-Circuit-June-28-July-2-What-Do-We-Do-with-a-Venue-Dodger.html">here</a>, and <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit-september-14-18-a-tale-of-two-mandamus-petitions.html">here</a>). In the latest case, a plaintiff sued several defendants related to the Victoria’s Secret brand in the Eastern District of Texas. It was undisputed that one defendant, Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C., operated physical Victoria’s Secret stores in the District—like the Federal Circuit, we’ll call this defendant the Stores defendant. But none of the other defendants had their own physical stores in the District, defendants that included the entity that manages the victoriassecret.com website and mobile application, the entity that creates Victoria’s Secret branded apparel and products, and the corporate parent of these various Victoria’s Secret entities (like the Federal Circuit, we’ll call these the Non-Store defendants). Among other arguments, the plaintiff argued venue was still proper in the District for the Non-Store defendants because the Store defendant’s employees were agents of the Non-Store defendants. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, agreeing with the district court that the plaintiff failed to prove its agent theory. The Court relied on general agency principles and its prior decision in In re Google to require three elements for a principal-agent relationship: (1) the principal has a right to direct or control the agent’s actions; (2) the principal manifests consent to have the agent act an on the principal’s behalf; and (3) the agent consents to act. The Court rejected the argument that documents from the corporate parent, such as a Code of Conduct for employees, sufficed to show direction and control over Store defendant’s employees. Testimony from a Store defendant manager explained that store managers hold employees accountable for following the Code of Conduct and make independent decisions about the hiring and firing of employees. Nor was the Court persuaded that Store defendant employees were agents because they accepted returns of items purchased through the mobile app or online. The Court compared that “one discrete task” to the installation and maintenance of servers in In re Google. Such a discrete task did not make Store defendant’s employees agents of the Non-Store defendants. In the end, plaintiffs failed to show “the Non-Store Defendants exercise the degree of control over Stores employees required to find an agency relationship.” That lack of principal-agent relationship ultimately led the Court to conclude the Non-Store defendants had no regular and established place of business in the District. Without such a place of business, plaintiffs could not show venue was proper in the District for those defendants.

Seth Lloyd, a member of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, has been counsel in more than a hundred appeals in federal and state courts nationwide.

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_selections_221.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 2-6): No Secret For Obtaining Venue

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 2-6): No Secret For Obtaining Venue

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_selections_221

The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments n

The Federal Circuit has its August sitting this week—its last before September’s scheduled return to in-person arguments. Before taking the virtual bench for the final time, the Court issued six opinions last week. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest. Precedential opinions: 3Non-precedential opinions: 3 Rule 36: 0Longest pending case from argument: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1600.opinion.7-30-2021_1811957.pdf">Military-Veterans Advocacy v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs</a>, No. 19-1600 (296 days) Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36): <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1911.opinion.7-28-2021_1810901.pdf">Ortiz v. McDonough</a>, No. 20-1911 (51 days) Case of the week: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1589.opinion.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf">Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp.</a>, No. 20-1589 Panel: Chief Judge Moore and Judges Reyna and Stoll, with Chief Judge Moore writing the opinion You should read this case if: you have an IPR in which the Board departed from the parties’ agreed claim construction What notice must the PTAB give before adopting a new claim construction not proposed by the parties? More than it did here, the Court held in our case of the week. The patent at issue concerns technology for processing multiple radio frequency signals simultaneously. Intel challenged Qualcomm’s patent in several IPRs, and both parties construed the claim term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” to mean signals that increase user bandwidth. The Board’s final written decisions, however, construed that term without requiring that the signals increase bandwidth. The Board went on to hold the challenged claims obvious.The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board “failed to provide Qualcomm adequate notice of and an opportunity respond to its sua sponte claim construction.” That failure, the Court held, violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Key to the Court’s analysis was that the Board departed from the parties’ agreed construction. In general, the Court explained, the Board “may adopt a claim construction of a disputed term that neither party proposes.” But here, the relevant point—whether the claimed signals must increase bandwidth—“was not in dispute.” The parties therefore could not have anticipated that this construction “was a moving target.”The Court rejected the notion that Qualcomm had adequate notice or an opportunity to respond at the oral hearing or by seeking rehearing. At the hearing, one judge had raised the increased-bandwidth requirement in questioning Intel. But the Court emphasized both the brevity and one-sidedness of that questioning: “The Board did not announce a construction, criticize the parties’ agreed-upon requirement, ask any follow-up questions to Intel, or ask any related questions to Qualcomm.” And even aside from the lack of notice, the hearing was an insufficient opportunity to respond because, for example, it gave Qualcomm no chance to submit evidence on the issue. The Court also held that Qualcomm was not required to seek rehearing before arguing on appeal that the Board denied it notice and an opportunity to respond.The case contains a few other points of interest. First, the Court held that the Board’s procedural error prejudiced Qualcomm, but it left open whether prejudice is required for this sort of procedural error. Second, Qualcomm had raised an Arthrex challenge but ultimately dropped it (<a target="_blank" href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/Arthrex-Looks-To-Be-Going-Out-With-A-Whimper---.html">a trend we recently discussed</a>). Finally, the last section of the Court’s opinion addressed another interesting issue, which we won’t get into in detail here. In brief, the Court declined to extend to electronic circuits a principle the Court had recognized for computers (namely, in a means-plus-function claim, the corresponding structure includes not just the computer but the computer programmed to carry out a disclosed algorithm for performing the function).

08_03_federalcircuitry_electricalcircuit_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 26-30): Sua sponte claim construction

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 26-30): Sua sponte claim construction

08_03_federalcircuitry_electricalcircuit_blog_v1

The Federal Circuit has its August sitting this week—its last before September’s scheduled return to in-person arguments. Before taking the virtual bench for th

Now that it’s been roughly a month since the Federal Circuit issued mass sua sponte Arthrex orders (which we discussed in <a href="/topics/Early-Hints-About-What-Happens-Next-After-Arthrex" target="_self">Early Hints About What Happens Next After Arthrex</a>), we thought it was worth checking in on what’s happening post-Arthrex.As many readers probably saw, the PTO quickly issued guidance for parties who wish to seek Director (or right now, Acting Director) review under Arthrex.But since we’re focused on all things Federal Circuit, we wanted to report on what’s happening at the Court. Last week we saw filings from the PTO solicitor’s office giving its view of what Arthrex requires. The PTO took the position that, in cases where the issue is preserved, the Supreme Court’s decision warrants only a limited remand to give a party the opportunity to seek Director review. The limited remand would not require vacating the original PTAB panel’s decision, which would be a reversal from what the Federal Circuit did under its original Arthrex decision. And during the limited remand, the Federal Circuit would retain jurisdiction over the appeal so that the appeal could proceed promptly if the Director denies review.This week, the Federal Circuit began issuing orders that largely track the PTO’s suggested approach. In a per curiam order by the original Federal Circuit Arthrex panel (Chief Judge Moore and Judges Reyna and Chen), the Federal Circuit recalled its mandate from its original Arthex decision. That recall undoes the Federal Circuit’s earlier vacatur and remand of the PTAB’s decision for a new hearing before a new PTAB panel. The Court instead ordered a remand “for the limited purpose of allowing appellant the opportunity to request Director rehearing of the final written decision.” The Court gave the appellant 30 days to file a request for Director rehearing. But as suggested by the PTO, the original PTAB decision remains in effect pending any action by the Acting Director. And the Federal Circuit has otherwise retained jurisdiction over the appeal. It ordered the parties to inform the Court within 14 days of any action on the rehearing request, with the Federal Circuit Clerk to automatically reactivate the appeal upon notice that the Acting Director denied the rehearing request.In light of this order (and as many expected), the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision is shaping up to be much less favorable to parties who preserved an Appointments Clause challenge than the Federal Circuit’s original decision. Because it appears that the Acting Director is unlikely to grant rehearing in the vast majority of cases, a remand under the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision seems likely to lead only to delay rather than any real chance of a different outcome. Indeed, it appears several parties that had raised Arthrex earlier are coming to the same conclusion—we’ve seen multiple instances now where patent owners that previously raised an Arthrex challenge have now told the Federal Circuit they are no longer pursuing that challenge and instead wish their appeals to go forward.

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_selections_27.jpg

Arthrex Looks to Be Going Out With a Whimper

Arthrex Looks to Be Going Out With a Whimper   

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_selections_27

Now that it’s been roughly a month since the Federal Circuit issued mass sua sponte Arthrex orders (which we discussed in Early Hints About What Happens Next Af

Arthrex Looks to Be Going Out With a Whimper

Federal Circuit Insights

Keniece Gray and Maryrose McLaughlin, Morrison & Foerster summer associates, co-authored this post.As expected, the Senate has voted to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/senate-confirms-perkins-coies-tiffany-cunningham-federal-circuit-2021-07-19/" target="_blank">confirm</a> Tiffany Cunningham as the Federal Circuit’s newest judge. This makes history, giving the Federal Circuit its first ever Black judge and bringing the Court to <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/50-50-court" target="_blank">gender parity</a> for the first time. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions: 2Non-precedential opinions: 6Rule 36: 8 Longest pending case from argument: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1289.opinion.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf" target="_blank">Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd.</a>, No. 20-1289 (225 days)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36): <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1168.opinion.7-20-2021_1806494.pdf" target="_blank">In re: Kirilichin</a>, No. 21-1168 (14 days) Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1289.opinion.7-22-2021_1808187.pdf" target="_blank">Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd.</a>, No. 20-1289 Panel: Judges Newman, Dyk, and Reyna, with Judge Reyna writing for the majority and Judge Dyk concurring in part and dissenting in part You should read this case if: you have a matter involving objective indicia of nonobviousness (otherwise known as “secondary considerations”) In our case of the week, the Federal Circuit addressed objective indicia of nonobviousness, holding that the Board misapprehended three separate points of law.This week’s case is about a polymer that insulates communication cables. This polymer is unique because it can be extruded at high speeds without compromising on coating quality. Chemours Company owns two patents for this polymer, which Chemours sells commercially. Daikin Industries petitioned for inter partes review, challenging the claims as obvious. The Board agreed. In holding the claims obvious, the Board rejected Chemours’ attempt to show objective indicia of nonobviousness. Chemours asserted that its patented invention had commercial success. But the Board found an “insufficient nexus” between the claimed invention and its commercial success, faulted Chemours for failing to provide market share data, and discounted commercial success because Chemours’ patents were blocking patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit identified three legal errors in that analysis. First, the Court rejected the Board’s nexus analysis. The Board had found no nexus between the claims and the product’s commercial success because the product’s key properties all appeared in the prior art. But those features appeared in separate prior art references, while the claimed invention combined them. The Federal Circuit agreed with Chemours that the Board improperly considered nonobviousness of individual elements rather than the invention as a whole. The Court held that in these circumstances—“where the invention is a unique combination of three interdependent properties”—“the separate disclosure of individual limitations” in the prior art “does not negate a nexus.” Second, the Court held that sales data alone could be enough to show commercial success. The Board had held that Chemours’ gross sales figures were inadequate absent market share data. But the Federal Circuit held that “market share data, though potentially useful, is not required.”Finally, the Court reversed the Board’s reliance on the blocking patents doctrine. The Board had reasoned that Chemours’ patent was a blocking patent, meaning it blocked later inventions from entering the market. Typically, when a blocking patent discourages later inventions from competing, courts hold that commercial success is a weaker indicator of nonobviousness, because the success could be attributable to the absence of competitors rather than to nonobviousness. The Board applied that doctrine here, determining that the existence of Chemours’ patent “would have precluded others from freely entering the market.” But the Court held that the Board incorrectly used the blocking patent doctrine. The Court held that “the challenged patent, which covers the claimed invention at issue, cannot act as a blocking patent,” and therefore the doctrine was inapplicable.For those reasons, the Court held the Board erred in its consideration of objective indicia of nonobviousness. The panel separately held—in a portion of its opinion that drew a dissent from Judge Dyk—that the Board’s obviousness analysis was unsupported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court reversed the Board’s determination that Chemours’ claims was unpatentable as obvious.

07_26_federal_circuitry_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 19-23): Considering Secondary Considerations

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 19-23): Considering Secondary Considerations

07_26_federal_circuitry_blog_v1

Keniece Gray and Maryrose McLaughlin, Morrison & Foerster summer associates, co-authored this post.
As expected, the Senate has voted to confirm Tiffany Cunning

Keniece Gray, Morrison & Foerster summer associate, co-authored this post. We could have a new Federal Circuit judge today (achieving <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/50-50-court" target="_self">gender parity</a> on the Court). Last week, the Senate invoked cloture (by a 63-34 vote) on the nomination of Tiffany Cunningham to replace Judge Wallach, and the Senate is expected to vote on her confirmation this afternoon.The current members of the Court were busy last week too, issuing a whopping 17 opinions. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions: 6Non-precedential opinions: 11Rule 36: 2Longest pending case from argument: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1718.opinion.7-13-2021_1803269.pdf" target="_blank">Level Sleep LLC v. Sleep Number Corp.</a>, No. 20-1718 (189 days)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36): <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1897.opinion.7-14-2021_1803996.pdf" target="_blank">Nite Glow Industries Inc. v. Central Garden & Pet Co.</a>, No. 20-1897 (34 days)Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2320.opinion.7-14-2021_1804016.pdf" target="_blank">Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.</a>, No. 20-2320Panel: Judges Newman, Lourie, and Dyk, with Judge Lourie writing the opinionYou should read this case if: you have a matter involving patent eligibility under AliceAbstract idea or patent-eligible subject matter? The Court took on that question (again) last week.In our case of the week, a company that helps retailers prevent theft, Sensormatic Electronics, LLC, asserted patent claims against home surveillance developer Wyze Labs, Inc. The patents at issue describe a surveillance system using wireless input devices. Wyze argued that the patent claims ineligible subject matter under § 101.Per Alice, patent eligibility first requires determination of whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. If so, the next step is to determine whether claims include an “inventive concept” that does more than recite an ineligible idea “while adding the words ‘apply it.’” The Federal Circuit emphasized here that the substance behind the claims—not whether they are drafted as machine or system claims—determines whether the claims are non-abstract.The district court held Sensormatic’s patent claims ineligible, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit concluded that the subject matter of Sensormatic’s asserted patents were ineligible for protection as “none of the claim limitations take the claims beyond those of abstract ideas” and the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform them into patent-eligible subject matter.At Alice step one, Sensormatic argued its claims are directed to three nonabstract improvements to currently available surveillance technologies: (1) a configuration of surveillance sensors, (2) “dual encoding” of input data, and (3) detection of surveillance “trigger events” to prioritize input data. But the Court held that all of these are abstract ideas. It explained: (1) Sensormatic identified no particular non-abstract configuration, (2) the concept of decoding is abstract, and (3) prioritizing input data by detecting trigger events is merely an aspect of the abstract ideas of remote surveillance and image classification and organization. At step two, Sensormatic argued that the claims apply a particular configuration of wireless input devices “that was unconventional and improved surveillance technology.” But the Court held that Sensormatic failed to set forth any particular physical configuration beyond the conventional application of generic devices.Sensormatic also challenged the district court’s choice of a representative claim. But the Federal Circuit held that Sensormatic failed to identify any claim limitations that the district court failed to consider. The Court’s determination of patent ineligibility thus defeated all of Sensormatic’s asserted claims.

07_19_federalcircuitry_securitycamera_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 12-16): Under Alice, Another Patent Bites The Dust

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 12-16): Under Alice, Another Patent Bites The Dust

07_19_federalcircuitry_securitycamera_blog_v1

Keniece Gray, Morrison & Foerster summer associate, co-authored this post. 
We could have a new Federal Circuit judge today (achieving gender parity on the Cour

Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions: 1 Non-precedential opinions: 4Rule 36: 3 Longest and shortest (non-Rule 36) pending case from argument: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1637.opinion.7-8-2021_1801204.pdf" target="_blank">Rudisill v. McDonough</a>, No. 20-1637 (211 days) Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1837.opinion.6-28-2021_1796547.pdf" target="_blank">TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Electronics, Inc.</a>, No. 20-1837Panel: Judges Prost, Schall, and Reyna, with Judge Prost writing the opinionYou should read this case if: you have a matter involving indefiniteness, particularly as it relates to claim construction Do you know what the phrases “overlay activation criterion” and “overlay activation signal” mean? If not, you’re not alone. This week’s case-of-the-week involves a look at how federal courts treat disputed claim terms that are not defined in a patent and do not have an ordinary and customary meaning. TVnGO owns a family of patents related to a system for merging broadcast TV signals with internet signals, which a user can control at home. For instance, picture a TV broadcasting the Olympics with smaller icons on the sides of the screen directing you to internet-based content such as Netflix or Spotify. TVnGO alleged that LGE’s “Smart TVs” infringe their asserted patents. The district court issued a claim construction opinion concluding that two of the phrases in the asserted claims are indefinite, thereby rendering the asserted claims invalid. Those two phrases, as you may have guessed, are “overlay activation criterion” and “overlay activation signal.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s conclusion of indefiniteness de novo. The Court looked for intrinsic evidence about what the phrases meant, for ordinary meaning in the art, and for consistencies, or inconsistencies, in how these phrases, or words within the phrases, are used in the patents.In reading the claims, it was evident that these phrases relate generally to producing “overlays” of broadcast TV with internet content, but there was uncertainty regarding their precise meaning. The parties agreed that neither of these phrases has an ordinary meaning in the art. But TVnGO argued that meaning could be gleaned from splicing together the meaning of each individual word in these phrases. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument. The intrinsic patent record was also not helpful to TVnGO since neither of these phrases was even mentioned, let alone defined, in the specification. Rather, they were merely added to the claims during prosecution without clear meaning behind them. As the Court continued its search for reasonable certainty in the meaning of these phrases, the meaning of these terms became even less clear.The Federal Circuit pointed to intra-patent inconsistency between the specification and the claims when describing the result of each phrase. These inconsistencies were identified, in part, by looking at the patent’s use of “activates” or “activating.” The Court found that the use of these words in the specification pointed to one result (display of internet content associated with a pre-existing overlay) while the claims pointed to a different result (display of an overlay in the first place), thereby instilling doubt as to which is the “correct” result.The Federal Circuit then pointed to a second type of intra-patent inconsistency—an inconsistency within the claims themselves—for one of the phrases. Specifically, the independent claims indicated that an “overlap activation criterion” is provided over the internet to the user’s premises, while the dependent claims indicated that an “overlap activation criterion” can originate from the user’s premises through the remote control. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack reasonable certainty about whether the source of an “overlap activation criterion” is the internet or the user’s premises.As you might expect, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion of indefiniteness because of a lack of reasonable certainty for what these phrases mean. Not only did the specification lack any definition, but there also was no ordinary meaning associated with these phrases, and further digging into the patents only caused more confusion due to intra-patent inconsistencies.

schmidt_jeffrey_blog_150x150.png

schmidt_jeffrey_common_640x280.jpg

schmidt_jeffrey_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

schmidt_jeffrey_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

schmidt_jeffrey_social_600x600.jpg

Dr. Jeff Schmidt is a member of the firm’s Patent Group. His practice focuses on patent prosecution in the areas of life sciences, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals, which includes the preparation an

Jeffrey W. Schmidt Ph.D.

Jeffrey Schmidt

07_13_circuitryblog_smarttv_blog_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 5-9): What Happens When the Federal Circuit Looks to Define the Undefined

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 5-9): What Happens When the Federal Circuit Looks to Define the Undefined

07_13_circuitryblog_smarttv_blog_v1

Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.
Precedential o

Myles Douglas Young, Morrison & Foerster summer associate, co-authored this post.The Federal Circuit sits for oral arguments this week. Despite juggling argument preparation and the July 4 holiday weekend, the Court still managed to release several decisions last week. One was a precedential order granting mandamus to order a change of venue (a subject our blog has covered <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit-september-14-18-a-tale-of-two-mandamus-petitions.html">before</a>). Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.Precedential opinions: 2Non-precedential opinions: 5Rule 36: 0Longest pending case from argument: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1775.opinion.6-29-2021_1797169.pdf" target="_blank">Corus Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc.</a>, No. 20-1775 (391 days)Shortest pending case from argument (non-Rule 36): <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2313.opinion.6-30-2021_1797837.pdf" target="_blank">GateArm Technologies, Inc. v. Access Masters, LLC</a>, No. 20-2313 (23 days) Case of the week: <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-139.order.6-30-2021_1797987.pdf" target="_blank">In Re Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc.</a>, No. 21-139. Panel: Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna, with Judge Dyk writing the opinion You should read this case if: You have a matter involving a request for change of venue, especially if alleged attempts to manipulate venue are at issue. The plaintiffs in this week’s case tried to ensure that Texas was the only possible venue for their patent infringement suits. The Federal Circuit was unimpressed. Refusing to be “bound by a plaintiff’s efforts to manipulate venue,” the Court looked past the plaintiffs’ patent assignment agreements and the legal separation between corporate entities to hold that the suits must be transferred to California. The case concerns petitions for writs of mandamus related to patent infringement suits against Samsung and LG, directed at functionality in third-party applications that run on Samsung and LG devices. Both suits were brought by Ikorongo Technology (“Ikorongo Tech”) and Ikorongo Technology Texas (“Ikorongo Texas”) in the Western District of Texas. The relationship between Ikorongo Tech and Ikorongo Texas was, in the Federal Circuit’s eyes, an effort to manipulate venue. Although the two are legally separate entities, the Court saw them as related. The same five people own both companies, and Ikorongo Texas was created shortly before the filing of these suits. Ten days prior to filing its initial complaints, Ikorongo Tech assigned to Ikorongo Texas the exclusive rights to sue for infringement for the patents at issue within specified parts of Texas, including the Western District of Texas. According to the Ikorongo companies, this meant that venue could lie only in Texas, the only place where one of the plaintiffs—Ikorongo Texas—had relevant patent rights. Samsung and LG both moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the suits to the Northern District of California, asserting that 60% of the accused third-party applications were developed by parties in that district, that the majority of potential witnesses resided in that district, and that no potential witness resided in the Western District of Texas. The district court denied the motion, finding that Samsung and LG had failed to establish the threshold requirement under § 1404(a): that the suit “might have been brought” in the transferee district. The court reasoned that Ikorongo Texas’ claims would not be subject to venue in the Northern District of California, so venue over the entirety of the actions was improper under §1404(a). In the alternative, the district court also held that under the next stage of the transfer analysis—a weighing of traditional public and private interest factors—a transfer was unwarranted.The Federal Circuit disagreed on all counts and granted mandamus relief. The Court held that it would not allow the Ikorongo companies to escape a venue transfer by way of “manipulative activities”—namely, the use of what amounted to a shell corporation to assure venue in the Western District of Texas. The Court observed that efforts to manipulate jurisdiction (rather than venue) are barred by statute, and that past cases had rejected venue manipulation under the public/private interest analysis. The panel extended that principle to § 1404(a)’s threshold requirement that the suit “might have been brought” in the transferee district. The Court ruled that § 1404(a) does not allow for defeat of a motion for change of venue deriving from “deliberate conduct of a party” favoring one venue over another. As a result, the Federal Circuit disregarded the limited claims by Ikorongo Texas and considered only the nationwide claims asserted by Ikorongo Tech (which could have been brought in the Northern District of California) in determining the appropriate venue.The Court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion in assessing the public/private interest factors. The Court determined that the district court had given too little weight to the fact that nearly all potential witnesses were located in the Northern California. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit rebuked the district court’s assertion that local interests in a patent case are generally a “fiction.” The Court held instead that “[l]ocal interests are not a fiction, and the record here shows a substantial local interest,” since the events leading to the infringement claims took place mostly in Northern California, and not Texas. Finally, the panel found that the district court overstated concerns about judicial economy. While Ikorongo Texas had pointed to a related suit filed in Texas, the Federal Circuit held that the cases overlapped only slightly, and that the asserted expediency of the Texas district courts in resolving these cases had no “particular significance in these cases.” Based on these considerations, the Circuit granted Samsung's and LG’s petitions for writs of mandamus and ordered the district court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.

07_06_fedcirusamap_v1.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (June 28-July 2): What Do We Do with a Venue Dodger?

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (June 28-July 2): What Do We Do with a Venue Dodger?

07_06_fedcirusamap_v1

Myles Douglas Young, Morrison & Foerster summer associate, co-authored this post.
The Federal Circuit sits for oral arguments this week. Despite juggling argume

What happens when two courts of appeal each think the other has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal? Confusion and inter-circuit criticism. The latest chapter in such a dispute between the Federal and Fifth Circuits on the scope of the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction in patent cases is unfolding now.Chandler v. Phoenix Services involves a so-called Walker Process claim. Walker Process monopolization claims are antitrust—not patent—claims based on the enforcement of patents procured by fraud. In Chandler, the defendants’ patent had been found unenforceable due to inequitable conduct in an earlier case. While that case was making its way to the Federal Circuit, the Chandler defendants allegedly took several steps to enforce the patent against competitors (including the Chandler plaintiffs), such as sending cease and desist letters, advertising the patent on their website, and asserting the patent in litigation. The Chandler plaintiffs then brought a Walker Process claim, alleging that the defendants were trying to enforce a patent they knew to be unenforceable. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the statute of limitations had expired. The Chandler plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit. But in a precedential order issued last month, the Federal Circuit declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Fifth Circuit—the regional circuit for this case arising from district court in Texas.In the transfer order, the Federal Circuit recounted blow-by-blow its previous dispute with the Fifth Circuit over which one had appellate jurisdiction over a similar claim. By way of background, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) gives the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over appeals “arising under[] any Act of Congress relating to patents.” In Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tenco Corporation, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over a Walker Process case on the ground that it arose under antitrust law, not patent law. 889 F.3d 1075, 1078 (Fed, Cir. 2018) (“Xitronix I”). As the court explained, “patent claims will not be invalidated or reviewed based on the results of this case.” The Federal Circuit thus transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and shipped the Xitronix appeal back to the Federal Circuit. In doing so, it took a more expansive view of the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction than the Federal Circuit itself had. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the case belonged in the Federal Circuit because it “touched on” patent law in that the plaintiff’s antitrust claim turned in part on whether the patent at issue was enforceable. Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tenco Corporation, 916 F.3d, 429, 441 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Xitronix II”).After receiving the bounce-back from the Fifth Circuit, the Federal Circuit in Xitronix accepted jurisdiction in a non-precedential decision. In doing so, however, it characterized the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning as “incorrect,” “untenable,” and based on a “misread[ing]” of Federal Circuit precedent. Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 757 Fed. Appx. 1008, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Fast-forward to June 2021 and the Chandler appeal. The Federal Circuit again found itself with an appeal in a Walker Process case arising from a district court from within the Fifth Circuit. So what did it do? It adhered to the position articulated in the first (and precedential) Xitronix order, concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction, and transferred the appeal to the Fifth Circuit. In doing so, it recounted its dispute with the Fifth Circuit in Xitronix. The Federal Circuit explained that while it had ultimately acquiesced to jurisdiction in Xitronix it had not backed down from its view that the appeal had actually belonged in the Fifth Circuit. The Federal Circuit defended its reasoning in Xitronix I, noting that in Gunn v. Minton 568 U.S. 251 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a state court had jurisdiction over a malpractice suit because it did not “arise under” federal patent law, despite requiring a patent law issue to be resolved. Drawing on Gunn, the Chandler court re-stated its position that “the risk of another circuit making an erroneous or inconsistent patent law decision within a Walker Process claim is not enough to trigger [Federal Circuit] jurisdiction over federal patent law cases.”What will happen next in Chandler? It seems likely that the jurisdictional ping-pong between Washington and New Orleans will not resume here and that the Fifth Circuit will take the case. As the Federal Circuit’s transfer order notes, the Fifth Circuit should have jurisdiction over Chandler even under the Fifth Circuit’s own reasoning in Xitronix II. That is so because the patent-at-issue had previously been ruled unenforceable, leaving no live patent law issues to be decided.  If the Federal Circuit’s prediction is correct, the underlying disagreement between the circuits will likely remain unresolved. And future appeals involving Walker Process and other patent-adjacent claims could continue to bounce between the two courts—unless and until one of them recedes from its view or the Supreme Court steps in.

palmore_joseph_blog_150x150.png

palmore_joseph_common_640x280.jpg

palmore_joseph_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

palmore_joseph_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

palmore_joseph_social_600x600.jpg

Joe Palmore co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Chambers USA describes him as “an outstanding oral advocate,” who is “calm, focused, effective and doesn’t back down,” and has “complete command of the facts.” Joe “writes great briefs” (Chambers USA), with one client recounting that “the Court mirrored the language he thoughtfully chose in its ultimate order” (Legal 500).

Joseph R. Palmore

Joseph R. Palmore is co-chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group and Managing Partner for the Washington, D.C. office. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Joe was an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department of Justice and the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Joseph Palmore

07_01_pingpong_blog.jpg

Return to Sender: When Courts of Appeals Disagree on Which One Has Jurisdiction

Return to Sender: When Courts of Appeals Disagree on Which One Has Jurisdiction

07_01_pingpong_blog

What happens when two courts of appeal each think the other has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal? Confusion and inter-circuit criticism. The latest chapter