May 18, 2017
Authored and Edited by Jeffrey D. Smyth; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In In re AT&T Intellectual Property II, LP, No. 16-1830 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not exceed its statutory authority when instituting an inter partes reexamination because a request and a requester were present at the time of institution.
In 2012, LG filed a request for inter partes reexamination of AT&T’s patent related to compressing and transmitting video data. Before the Board could decide whether to institute, LG sought to have its request denied. Importantly, LG did not withdraw its request or withdraw from the proceeding. Rather, LG filed a request to suspend the standard rule that prohibits a requester from filing additional documents pre-institution. The Board denied LG’s request to suspend the rule, and ultimately granted LG’s initial request for reexamination. LG withdrew from the proceeding several months later.
On appeal, AT&T argued that the Board exceeded its authority by instituting reexamination after LG sought to have its request denied. The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court first noted that its authority to review Board decisions relating to the institution of reexaminations is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 312(c) (effective September 16, 2011),* but that the provision did not apply here. The Court indicated that it could review whether the Board lacked the authority to institute reexamination due to the alleged lack of a request and/or requester because the question did not pertain to whether “the information presented in the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail.” The Court then held that the Board properly acted within its statutory authority because, at the time of institution, a request and a requester (LG) were still involved in the proceeding—it was not until after institution that LG withdrew. The Court declined to further assess the propriety of the decision whether to institute.
The Court also affirmed the Board’s finding that AT&T’s patent was anticipated.
* In September 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act, which amended the procedures for inter partes reexamination and created the procedures for inter partes review. Inter partes reexamination procedures are being phased out.
Copyright © 2017 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.
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
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.