March 4, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kenneth S. Guerra; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., No. 2019-1061 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020), the Federal Circuit found Acoustic waived its 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time bar challenge to the PTAB’s jurisdiction and affirmed the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,509,841 (“the ’841 patent”). The Court also concurrently affirmed the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 5,986,574 (“the ’574 patent”) in Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., No. 2019-1059 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020).
In 2010, Acoustic sued Itron for infringement of the ’841 and ’574 patents. The parties ultimately settled, and Itron became time barred from seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of the two patents.
Years later, Acoustic sued Silver Spring Networks, Inc. for infringement of the ’841 and ’574 patents and Silver Spring filed petitions for IPRs of the two patents. After the PTAB instituted IPRs of the two patents and review was underway, Silver Spring and Itron merged so that Itron became the real party in interest. The PTAB found the ’841 patent unpatentable as anticipated by two references and obvious in light of two other references. The PTAB also found the ’574 patent unpatentable as obvious. At no point during the IPR did Acoustic raise a time bar challenge.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit declined to determine at what point the section 315(b) time bar attached, rejecting Acoustic’s challenges as waived since Acoustic did not raise time-bar challenges at the PTAB for either IPR. Acoustic argued that a time bar is jurisdictional and therefore can be raised at any time. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting the difference between challenges to agency jurisdiction and federal court jurisdiction. The Court also found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the ’841 patent was unpatentable. Lastly, the Court rejected Acoustic’s non-obviousness arguments for the ’574 patent as waived since Acoustic did not raise the same arguments at the PTAB.
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.
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.