直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

New Vision Wins Another Chance to Defend Gaming Patents Following Arthrex Remand

May 20, 2021

Authored and Edited by Sneha Nyshadham; Caitlin E. Fowler; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In New Vision Gaming & Dev., Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., No. 2020-1399 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated two covered-business method review final written decisions finding that all of the claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and remanded for further proceedings.

The Court granted New Vision’s request to vacate and remand the Board’s decision in light of the Court’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) finding that New Vision did not waive the challenge because the Arthrex decision issued after the Board’s final written decision.

Judge Newman filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Judge Newman agreed that the Board’s decision must be vacated under Arthrex.  However, Judge Newman argued that the Court should first determine whether the forum selection clause in the parties’ license agreement barred SG Gaming from pursuing CBM review before deciding whether remand is appropriate.  Judge Newman argued that this is a threshold issue that should be determined because if the parties are committed to resolving any disputes in Nevada, there is no basis for new PTAB proceedings on remand.

Tags

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), patentable subject matter, Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew

For more information

  • New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc.

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Consumer Goods and Services

Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure

Gaming

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2021 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.

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada

October 14-16, 2026

New York

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding in DRAM Data Path Patent

October 5, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP