August 25, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brandon T. Andersen; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s denial of Uniloc’s requested substitute claims, holding that the PTAB may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when determining the patentability of proposed substitute claims in IPR.
Uniloc sued Hulu and Netflix in district court, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960. Hulu and Netflix filed IPR petitions against the ’960 patent. The PTAB found the original claims unpatentable and rejected Uniloc’s substitute claims as not patent eligible under § 101. Uniloc appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that the text, structure, and legislative history of the IPR statutes showed Congress’s intent to allow the PTAB to evaluate patent eligibility of substitute claims. First, the Court observed that the plain language of the statute directs the PTAB to determine “patentability” and § 101 is part of a patentability determination. The Court also explained that § 311 addresses the petition phase of the IPR, not the adjudication of claims, which falls under § 316. The Court next noted that substitute claims have not previously undergone examination and thus the PTAB may determine patentability of those claims under additional bases. The Court thus affirmed the PTAB’s ability to determine patent eligibility of substitute claims.
Judge O’Malley dissented and would have held that the PTAB could not reach patentability of the substitute claims because the original claims had been held invalid in a prior district court decision, which the Court had affirmed, and thus there were no claims to substitute. Judge O’Malley would have also found that the PTAB could not reach questions of patent eligibility when reviewing substitute claims.
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.
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.