by Dennis Crouch

I learned of this significant development from Michael Shapiro's Bloomberg article reporting that the U.S. government took the unusual step of filing a statement of interest in a district court patent case, urging consideration of preliminary injunctive relief for a non-practicing entity (NPE). Radian Memory Systems LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:24-cv-1073 (E.D. Tex. 2025). The June 24, 2025 filing represents a notable intervention by both the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in what is part of its "America First Antitrust Enforcement" efforts.

Read the documents:

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit today issued a detailed scheduling order expedited resolution of the constitutional challenge to President Trump's global tariff program. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, 2025-1813 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2025). The per curiam order, issued by all participating active judges sitting en banc (excluding Judge Newman), establishes a six-week briefing schedule culminating in oral arguments on July 31, 2025—less than two months after the Court of International Trade's permanent injunction against the tariffs.  The court allocated 45 minutes per side for oral argument, double the typical time, signaling recognition of the case's exceptional constitutional significance.

The case consolidates two separate CIT cases - one filed by commercial actors led by V.O.S. and the other led by the State of Oregon.   The scheduling order explicitly authorized separate response briefs for the two plaintiff groups, rather than requiring coordination.  The order also permits amicus participation by waiving the usual consent and leave requirements -- there will likely be extensive third-party briefing.

Although the CIT issued a permanent injunction against President Trump's tariffs, earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued an emergency stay pending resolution of the appeal. This means that the White House can move forward with its tariffs.

Timeline for the appeal:

• Opening brief by US and any supporting amici: June 24.*
• Responsive briefs by V.O.S. and Oregon and any supporting Amici: July 8.
• Reply: July 18.
• Full Appendix: July 23.

by Dennis Crouch

One ongoing debate at the PTAB has been the role of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in inter pates review proceedings. AAPA refers to statements made by the patentee that admit that certain subject matter is part of the prior art. These statements are typically found in the background section and might include language like:

• “It is well known that …”
• “Conventional systems use …”
• “Prior work includes …”
• “As described in [reference], it is known that …”

Examiners rely heavily on AAPA, but IPR proceedings are limited to anticipation and obviousness grounds "and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications."   In Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ("Qualcomm I"), the Federal Circuit sided with the patentee (Qualcomm), holding that AAPA contained within the challenged patent does itself constitute such prior art.  Still,  the obviousness determination looks at evidence beyond the prior art, such as the level of skill in the art, and motivation to combine references.  And, the court held that AAPA could be used to prove those facts. The court noted particularly that a petitioner may properly rely on AAPA "as evidence of the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art" for purposes such as "furnishing a motivation to combine" or "supplying a missing claim limitation" as part of the obviousness analysis.  But see Arendi v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Following Qualcomm I, the USPTO issued updated guidance in on the treatment of AAPA in IPRs. Director Katherine Vidal's new guidance explicitly acknowledged the Federal Circuit's ruling that "under § 311, 'patents or printed publications' that form the 'basis' of a ground for inter partes review must themselves be prior art to the challenged patent" and not the challenged patent itself or any admissions therein. The guidance clarified that it is "impermissible for a petition to challenge a patent relying on solely AAPA without also relying on a prior art patent or printed publication."

But, the updated USPTO guidance established what would later be termed an "in combination" rule, providing that "[i]f an IPR petition relies on admissions in combination with reliance on one or more prior art patents or printed publications, those admissions do not form 'the basis' of the ground and must be considered by the Board in its patentability analysis." The guidance identified several permissible uses of AAPA in IPR proceedings, including: "(1) supply[ing] missing claim limitations that were generally known in the art prior to the invention...or the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) support[ing] a motivation to combine particular disclosures; or (3) demonstrat[ing] the knowledge of the ordinarily-skilled artisan at the time of the invention...for any other purpose related to patentability."

Back to Qualcomm: On remand, the PTAB applied the USPTO's "in combination" rule to conclude that Ground 2 of Apple's IPR petition complied with § 311(b). The Board determined that since Apple's challenge relied on AAPA "in combination with" prior art patents (Majcherczak and Matthews), the AAPA did not form "the basis" of the ground in violation of § 311(b). The Board rejected Qualcomm's argument that Apple had expressly included AAPA as part of the "Basis" of Ground 2 in its petition tables, concluding that these statements merely described how the grounds included both AAPA and prior art patents used "in combination."

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has once again reversed. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2023-1208, 2023-1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) (Qualcomm II). The new panel concluded that Board's interpretation contravened the plain meaning of § 311(b). Rather, the Federal Circuit held that Apple's express designation of AAPA in the "Basis" of Ground 2 was determinative, ruling that the Board erred in concluding the challenged claims were unpatentable under Ground 2 when that ground improperly included AAPA as part of its basis in violation of § 311(b).

by Dennis Crouch

In a significant procedural shift, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart has announced a new "Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management" that fundamentally changes aspects of how America Invents Act (AIA) patent challenges are handled. The March 26, 2025 memorandum bifurcates the institution decision process by centralizing discretionary denial authority with the Director herself.  This follows the Feburary 28, 2025 action rescinding former Director Vidal's June 2022 memorandum that had significantly curtailed discretionary denials based on the Fintiv factors when parallel district court litigation is pending. I expect this change will substantially increase the percent of IPR/PRG petitions denied at the institution stage.

USPTO leadership appears to have a goal of increasing discretionary denials to protect patentees from harassment and delay in enforcing their property right.  In addition, though, it appears that the Office has a genuine concern about workload management as stated in the memo. The PTAB is being stretched thin by staff shortages caused by the return-to-office (RTO) requirement coupled with reduction-in-force (RIF) efforts from President Trump and Elon Musk's White House.  A substantial number of PTAB judges have quit and further reductions are expected in the coming month.  The memorandum indicates that the new procedures are "temporary in nature due, in part, to the current workload needs of the PTAB."

One difficulty with discretionary denials in the past is that patentees had little room in their briefs to address the issue in any detail.  As discussed below, the new rule provides substantial space for patentees to brief the issue. This will also alter district court proceedings, with patentees again seeking to move faster at the outset to obtain an early trial date and accused infringers seeking delay as well as preemptive stays.