September 5, 2023
Authored and Edited by Deena Kablaoui Lanier; Umber Aggarwal; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Roku, Inc., v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,[1] Petitioner-Appellant Roku challenged the Board’s final written decision in an inter partes review that upheld certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853 as not obvious in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0249890 (“Chardon”) and other asserted references. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the ’853 patent specification and expert testimony provided substantial evidence for the Board’s factual findings. Judge Newman dissented, asserting that the issues on appeal involved the ultimate question of obviousness, which required de novo review, and concluding the claims would have been obvious under such review.
The technology at issue relates to remote control systems allowing communications between a remote control device and target devices. For example, the ’853 patent discloses a remote control system that identifies data from a target device to generate a list of at least two communication methods. Chardon describes a system that also identifies data from a target device to generate a list. The list in Chardon, however, includes protocol-specific command codes such as infrared (IR) command codes, configured for IR transmission, and Consumer Electronic Control (CEC) command codes, configured for CEC transmission.
The Board’s nonobviousness holding turned on its determination that Chardon’s list of IR and CEC command codes did not teach or suggest a list of communication methods, as required by the ’853 patent claims.
The Board disagreed with Roku’s assertion that Chardon’s protocol-specific command codes indicate the command code and the communication method a transmission will use. For example, from Roku’s perspective, the IR and CEC command codes indicate the use of either IR transmissions or CEC transmissions, respectively. While neither party disputed that CEC and IR communication protocols are communication methods, Roku conceded that command codes themselves were not communication methods. And Roku’s expert eventually conceded that command codes and communication methods are distinct.
The Board credited Universal’s expert’s testimony to find that a skilled artisan would have distinguished command codes from communication methods such that a listing of the former would not equate to a listing of the latter. The testimony cited key portions from the ’853 patent specification that made the same differentiation—command codes were not communication methods.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit acknowledged Roku’s arguments, noting that Chardon’s disclosure of a list of “protocol-specific” command codes “necessarily discloses creating a listing comprised of at least two different communication methods ‘as a matter of logic.’” However, the Court also emphasized the high burden for reversal of factual issues, as this appeal presented. In light of Universal’s “persuasive[]” arguments supported by the specification and expert testimony, the Court found that Roku did not meet its burden because substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision, and the Board had discretion in its role as a factfinder to weigh the evidence itself.
Judge Newman dissented, opining that the Majority’s treatment of the appeal “as a purely factual question” overlooked analyzing “the ultimate legal question of non-obviousness” (emphasis added). Specifically, Judge Newman took issue with the Majority’s finding that “substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s finding that ‘Chardon’s listing of command codes did not teach or suggest a listing of communication methods’” (emphasis added). The dissent compared the ’853 patent and Chardon to determine if the latter suggested a listing of communication methods, finding that both (i) disclosed CEC and IR command codes lists and (ii) were directed toward providing a single remote control to use different methods to communicate with multiple target devices. While the dissent acknowledged the differences between the patent and Chardon, those differences had a minimal impact in the dissent’s analysis given that they were not recited in the claims. From this reasoning, Judge Newman concluded that the claims at issue would have been obvious because Chardon’s disclosure was “substantially identical and serve[d] the same purpose and use” as the claimed method.
To the extent it is reasonable to do so, Appellants may benefit from framing issues as legal issues that are reviewed under a lower de novo standard, rather than purely factual issues that only require substantial evidence for affirmance.
[1] Roku, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc., No. 2022-1058, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7656, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2023)
Copyright © 2023 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
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.