July 13, 2020
Authored and Edited by Neal A. Larson; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Caitlin E. O'Connell
In Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., No. 2019-1048 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that, after joining an IPR proceeding, petitioner Fitbit had the right to appeal the PTAB’s ruling for all instituted claims, including those not appearing in Fitbit’s own petition.
Apple filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-13 of the U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 (“the ’941 patent”). The PTAB granted the petition in part, instituting review of claims 1-2 and 6-13. Fitbit subsequently filed its own IPR petition seeking review of claims 1-2 and 6-13 of the ’941 patent and moved for joinder with Apple’s IPR, both of which were granted. After trial, but before the final written decision, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, holding that the PTAB must review all claims challenged in a petition if the petition is granted. In light of this decision, the PTAB re-instituted the combined IPR and added claims 3-5 of the ’941 patent. In its final written decision, the PTAB held that claims 1-2 and 6-13 of the ’941 patent were unpatentable and held that claims 3-5 of the ’941 patent were not unpatentable.
After the Board issued a final written decision, Apple withdrew from the proceeding, and Fitbit alone appealed the PTAB’s decision as to claims 3-5 of the ’941 patent. Patent owner Valencell argued that Fitbit had no right to appeal since it did not seek review of claims 3-5 of the ’941 patent in its own IPR petition. The Federal Circuit concluded that Fitbit’s rights as a joined party “appl[y] to the entirety of the proceeding,” and therefore Fitbit had the right to challenge the PTAB’s finding as to claims 3-5 of the ’941 patent.
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.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June 2024
August 22, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
August 16, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Collateral Estoppel May Bar Patentability of Substitute Claims in an IPR
August 8, 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.