March 15, 2016
Authored and Edited by Anthony A. Hartmann; Alex Kwan-Ho Chung, Ph.D.
In an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) final written decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding only on a subset of prior art grounds raised by the petitioner but not on other grounds is still part of the PTAB’s “comprehensive” institution decision, which the Federal Circuit cannot review. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc. No. 2015-1072 (Fed. Cir. March 1, 2016).
Harmonic filed an IPR petition with the PTAB to review patentability of Avid’s patent on uninterrupted video decompression technology, advancing seven different prior art grounds against all twenty claims of the patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on claims 1-16 based only on one ground, disposing of four other grounds directed at claims 1-16 as “redundant” to the instituted ground, as well as the two remaining grounds directed at claims 17-20. The final written decision of the PTAB found claims 1-10 invalid, but claims 11-16 not invalid, over the single instituted ground.
On appeal, Harmonic asserted that (i) the PTAB erred in its patentability determination on claims 11-16; and (ii) upon such determination, the PTAB should have reconsidered the other prior art grounds that it previously deemed redundant. To support its second position, Harmonic argued that “the non-binary nature of the Board’s [institution] decision—i.e., instituting on some grounds, but not others” presented unique facts not present in Federal Circuit precedents, transferring the decision from the realm of an “institution decision” into the realm of a “case management decision,” thus under the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to review.
After affirming the patentability of the claims at issue, the Federal Circuit dismissed Harmonic’s attempt to re-categorize the institution decision, which it found “no different than the circumstances squarely addressed in [its] prior decision. A decision to institute some grounds and not others, the Federal Circuit reasoned, is simply a combination of a decision to institute and a decision to not institute, each found unreviewable by the Federal Circuit in Cuozzo and St. Jude, respectively.
This position was not affected by the PTAB’s use of the term “redundant” for the non-instituted grounds, because the term simply implied that the non-instituted grounds were directed to the same claims as the instituted grounds, rather than to prior art references that are duplicative of those relied on in the instituted ground.
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.