• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

AIA Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Sanctions Order Regarding Ex Parte Communications

October 8, 2020

By Brooke M. Wilner

Edited by Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

In Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Nos. 2018-1456, 2018-1457 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB order sanctioning VoIP-Pal.com for certain ex parte communications. During the proceedings, Dr. Thomas Sawyer, the former CEO of Voip-Pal, sent six letters directed to various members of the PTAB, the then-Acting Director of the USPTO, and the Secretary of Commerce, and sometimes copying the President, other Cabinet Secretaries, Supreme Court Justices, and Federal Circuit Judges, among others.  These letters contained Dr. Sawyer’s concerns that the current state of the Patent Trial and Appeal PTAB did not embody the patent review system envisioned by the AIA.  The last few letters sought judgment in Voip-Pal’s favor in the two inter partes reviews, and indicated that the USPTO had committed ethical violations and perhaps even criminal violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The final letter indicated that Dr. Sawyer had prepared the letters in cooperation with Voip-Pal.  All six letters were received by the PTAB—but were not sent to Apple. 

By the time Final Written Decisions were issued in the two inter partes reviews, Apple was aware of only two of these letters.  Those Final Written Decisions found that Apple had not shown that the challenged claims were unpatentable.  Subsequently, Apple filed a motion for sanctions against Voip-Pal, requesting either judgment in its favor or a fresh proceeding before a new panel.  The PTAB then changed panels of administrative patent judges. The replacement panel ruled on Apple’s sanctions motion, finding that the appropriate sanction was to allow Apple to petition for rehearing of the Final Written Decisions.

Apple appealed, arguing that the replacement panel’s decision, which deferred to the previous panel’s Final Written Decisions, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Apple’s right to due process.  Apple would have the right to petition for rehearing of the Final Written Decisions anyway, it argued, so the PTAB’s “sanction” was no sanction at all.  And according to Apple, USPTO regulations do not allow the PTAB to prescribe its own sanction; rather, the PTAB must choose one of the few sanctions available, which do not include allowing a party to petition for rehearing.  Further, Apple argued its right to due process was violated because Dr. Sawyer’s ex parte communications with the PTAB prevented Apple from having a full and fair opportunity to present its case before an unbiased panel. 

Voip-Pal argued that the PTAB is not limited to the sanctions listed in USPTO regulations; rather, those regulations allow the PTAB expansive authority to impose sanctions of its choosing.  Further, Voip-Pal asserted Apple’s delay in waiting until after the Final Written Decisions were issued to seek sanctions indicates that Apple was not seriously concerned about its due process rights until after the unfavorable decisions.  Finally, Voip-Pal argued that the letters did not address the merits of the two cases and thus could not have biased the PTAB. 

The USPTO intervened, agreeing with Voip-Pal that the PTAB’s sanction was appropriate.  Further, the USPTO argued Apple’s right to due process was not violated because it had the opportunity to respond to the letters during the rehearing process, and in any event due process concerns are not implicated by “irrelevant communications.”

In a mixed decision for Apple, the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the Board’s sanctions decision.  But first, the Court found that Apple’s appeal relating to many of the subject claims was rendered moot by the Court’s intervening opinion in Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020), which found those claims ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Nevertheless, fifteen claims remained at issue.  Apple argued that Voip-Pal should be precluded from asserting those claims because they were “essentially the same” as those found ineligible in Twitter.  The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the patentability of those claims would need to be decided separately, and that the Board had committed no legal error in finding those claims nonobvious.

Finally, the Court turned to the Board’s sanctions order. Disagreeing with Apple, the Federal Circuit held that the statutory provision regarding sanctions did not limit the Board to the listed sanction options.  Rather, because that provision provided that the Board “may impose a sanction…include[ing]…one or more of the following” (emphasis added), the Court held that the Board may issue sanctions not explicitly listed.  Thus, the Court held that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act by issuing an unlisted sanction. And regarding Voip-Pal’s ex parte letters, the Court recognized that the Board introduced the letters into the record—thereby giving Apple an opportunity to respond—and did not deprive it of due process.

The Federal Circuit thus remanded the Board’s determination of nonobviousness of several claims with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot. The Court affirmed the Board’s determinations of nonobviousness of the remaining claims, as well as the Board’s sanctions orders.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Final Written Decision

Related Practices

Patent Litigation

Appeals

Post-Grant Proceedings

Appeals of PTAB Trial Decisions

Related Industries

Electronics and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Contacts

Brooke M. Wilner
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6454
Email
Amanda_Murphy
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4114
Email

Copyright © 2020 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Patenting Pharmaceutical Drug Formulations: Withstanding Litigation and PTAB Challenges

February 16, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Comparison of EPO Oppositions and USPTO PTAB Proceedings

January 28, 2021

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure

January 12, 2021

Webinar

Section 102 Prior Art and Section 103 Obviousness: Leveraging CCPA and Early Federal Circuit Decisions

January 7, 2021

Webinar

Podcasts

Podcast-Fed-Circuit-Series

December 2020 - Last Month at the Federal Circuit Podcast Series

December 22, 2020

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Podcast Series: Last Month at the Federal Circuit - December 2020

December 22, 2020

AIA Blog

Two New Precedential PTAB Decisions Applying the Fintiv Factors

December 22, 2020

AIA Blog

New PTAB Final Rule Places Burden on Patent Owner to Show Motion to Amend Complies with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

December 21, 2020

AIA Blog

PTAB Finds Resolution of Real-Party-In-Interest Disputes Unnecessary If Decision Would Not Impact Institution Decision

December 16, 2020

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently 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.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP