by Dennis Crouch
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a divided opinion in Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., No. 2023-1354 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025), highlighting key disagreements about the proper role of appellate courts in reviewing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. The case appears to also foreshadow an internal fight over the exclusion of expert testimony that is currently pending en banc in EcoFactor v. Google.
The case centers on the validity of a patent related to encoding data in cellular communications, specifically focusing on methods for protecting important data bits from transmission errors. Patent No. 7,319,718. Writing for the majority, Judge Dyk reversed the PTAB's holding that the claims were not proven obvious. Judge Stoll write in dissent, arguing the majority improperly stepped into the role of fact-finder rather than acting as an appellate tribunal. To be clear, Judge Stoll was no fan of the PTAB's opinion, but would have vacated and remanded for further factual development on the question of obviousness rather than entirely flipping the decision via reversal.
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.