August 13, 2020
Authored and Edited by Safiya Aguilar; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Fanduel, Inc., v. Interactive Games LLC, No. 2019-1393 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s duty to independently assess the merits of an inter partes review petition and held that a petitioner is not entitled to additional notice under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) solely because the Board’s assessment of patentability exceeds the scope of patent owner’s response.
In its final written decision, the Board upheld one of Interactive Games’s claims as non-obvious, despite originally determining that Fanduel was reasonably likely to succeed on the petition. Fanduel argued the Board violated the APA by relying on its own rationale for non-obviousness when the patent owner’s only argument rested solely on whether one of the cited references was prior art. Fanduel further argued that the Board’s decision improperly contradicted both its previous determination that the petition was reasonably likely to succeed and petitioner’s unchallenged expert testimony.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, reasoning that the scope of the Board’s analysis is not limited by patent owner’s response, since such a limitation would effectively shift the burden of proof to patent owner. Furthermore, Fanduel knew from the time it filed the petition that the Board would assess the full veracity of its obviousness challenge and no additional notice was required under the APA. The Court further held that because the standard of proof at institution is lower than the standard at trial, that the final written decision was not inherently inconsistent with its decision to institute the IPR. Last, the Court held that the Board was not obligated to defer to an expert’s opinion—whether the patent owner rebutted it was inconsequential.
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.