November 30, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
This Thanksgiving season, patent practitioners can be thankful for a Federal Circuit opinion clarifying how the Court considers evidence of public accessibility of references asserted in an inter partes review. See VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1734, 2019-1735 (Fed. Cir. November 25, 2020).
Twitter filed two petitions for inter partes review of a 2012 HTML-related patent owned by VidStream. Twitter’s challenge rested on a single primary reference, a book on HTML5 mastery. In its petition, Twitter submitted evidence of the book’s public accessibility, including its copyright page showing a copyright date of 2011. But the version of the book Twitter submitted with its petition contained a page that stated: “Made in the USA…13 December 2015.”
Focusing on this date, which was years after the challenged patent’s priority date, VidStream argued in its patent owner’s response that the book was not an available reference. In response, Twitter submitted a wealth of evidence of public accessibility, including:
Based on this evidence, the Board found that the book was an available prior art reference. After instituting both of Twitter’s challenges, the Board ultimately found every claim of the challenged patent unpatentable as obvious. VidStream appealed.
On appeal, VidStream first argued that the Board violated its rules in considering evidence that was not provided with Twitter’s petitions, but rather only in its replies. Twitter argued that the additional evidence was appropriate to counter VidStream’s response to its petition. The Federal Circuit agreed with Twitter, holding that it was appropriate for the Board to allow Twitter to respond to VidStream’s public accessibility arguments by submitting additional evidence. Further, because VidStream was given the opportunity to submit a sur-reply, VidStream was not prejudiced.
Second, VidStream argued that even if the new evidence was properly considered, Twitter did not establish that the relevant pages of the book provided with the petitions were published before the priority date. According to VidStream, whether other versions of the book were available before the priority date is not relevant, since the specific version of the book that Twitter submitted with its petition was not available until 2015. Twitter argued that the collective evidence, including that submitted with its reply, established that the book, including the pages relied upon in the petition, was publicly accessible before the priority date.
The Federal Circuit agreed with Twitter, finding that the evidence, when considered in its entirety, supported the Board’s finding that the book was published and publicly accessible before the priority date. Having found the reference publicly accessible, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision of obviousness.
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.