In a decision newly designated as "informative" by the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) provided important guidance on the procedural requirements for inter partes review (IPR) petitions, particularly consistency between IPR proceedings and parallel litigation.

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc., IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2024).

In its decision, the Board exercised discretion to deny the petition because the petitioner failed to properly address claim construction, particularly whether the claim terms were means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The petitioner had argued in related district court litigation that certain "component" terms (e.g., "mode-determining component," "first detecting component") were means-plus-function terms and thus indefinite due to lack of corresponding structure. However, in the IPR petition, the petitioner adopted a contradictory position—arguing that no explicit construction was needed and applying plain and ordinary meaning.

The PTAB found this contradictory position problematic because the petitioner had emphasized in district court proceedings that the classification as means-plus-function terms was "case-dispositive." The Board concluded the petitioner violated 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) by failing either to provide constructions explicitly, identify structure, or adequately justify its contradictory positions. Thus, the majority denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) due to procedural deficiencies in the petition.

The press bulletin release from the USPTO states:

In this decision denying institution, the Board addresses circumstances in which a petitioner argues in district court that a claim limitation should be construed as means-plus-function and argues in a petition for inter partes review that the PTAB should construe the same limitation using the plain and ordinary meaning. The majority opinion determines that the petition should, at a minimum, explain why the different positions are warranted or, alternatively, set forth a means-plus-function construction for the limitation.

Link.

Here, the denial was based on dual issues of (1) failure to discuss the MPF interpretation; and (2) clear contradiction with statements in the district court. Without the contradiction, I expect the panel would likely have been more lenient - especially in a situation like this where the claims do not use the word "means."  Likewise, had Cambridge Mobile acknowledged their district court position and provided some explanation for using plain meaning in the IPR context, the outcome might have been different, as the Board seems more concerned with the unexplained strategic inconsistency rather than the mere absence of MPF analysis.

by Dennis Crouch

In an unprecedented move, the Secretary of Commerce is terminating all current appointments to the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effectively removing the entire membership of both committees.  New members will apparently be appointed shortly, with the USPTO planning to proceed with previously scheduled public committee meetings in May 2025.  The statute requires that "any vacancy on an Advisory Committee shall be filled within 90 days after it occurs."

Although my memory is sometimes faulty, I believe that this is the first time in the committees' 25 year history that an incoming presidential administration has dismissed all members.  The dismissed PPAC includes Loletta Darde, Earl Bright, Henry Hadad, Lateef Mtima, Marvin J. Slepian, Olivia Tsai, Maria Anderson, Idris McKelvey, and Jennifer Yokoyama.  The last three of these were appointed in January 2025 -- making them immediately suspect to the new administration seeking to make dramatic departures from approaches taken by President Biden's administration.  In general, this group was all put in place under President Biden and  would have likely been a contentious group to deal with -- potentially authoring negative reports and asking difficult questions.

The new committees will be more friendly to the new administration, but my hope is that they will still be able to provide independent guidance and counsel to the USPTO Director. The effectiveness of these advisory committees has always depended on their ability to bring diverse perspectives and constructive criticism to USPTO operations, rather than simply rubber-stamping agency decisions. While political alignment with the administration may facilitate communication, the value here is really derived from member expertise, connection to practice, and willingness to challenge assumptions when necessary.

by Dennis Crouch

I'm delivering a U.S. patent law year-in-review for the past year or so.  Here are Nine of the topics that deserve some focus.

1. The New USPTO under President Trump: The greatest ongoing issue is the about-face from President Trump to President Biden. The ultimate direction and outcome will become more clear as we move through 2025, but there have already been dramatic shifts, especially focused on workforce RTO and RIF and elimination of non-core USPTO activities. Meanwhile backlog is growing again.

2. The Only Federal Circuit En Banc Decision – LKQ v. GM: Shifts in design patent obviousness analysis moving away from the Rosen-Durling test toward the more flexible KSR standard.  We'll talk through how the USPTO is responding; global expansion of design rights; and the 20% rise in design patents in 2024 (while also having a growing backlog).

by Dennis Crouch

In re Apple Inc., No. 24-111 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Federal Circuit has denied Apple's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a patent infringement case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The case, Carbyne Biometrics, LLC v. Apple Inc., involves six patents related to authentication and fraud reduction technologies used in Apple devices. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,929,512; 11,475,105; 11,514,138; 9,972,010; 10,713,656; 11,526,886.

Back in May 2023, Carbyne filed the lawsuit in W.D. Tex. Austin division and the case was assigned to Judge Yeakel who promptly retired a few weeks later.  Unlike the cases filed in Waco, Carbyne's Austin filing was clearly not a case of judge shopping, but is probably explained as forum shopping.  Apple's HQ is N.D. Cal, and Carbyne appears to be NYC based -- neither forum is seen as patentee friendly. Austin is a good choice here because Apple has a billion dollar facility in the city where it manufactures some of the accused devices.

After some shuffling, the case was reassigned to Judge Alan Albright. Although Albright is in the Waco division, he loves patent cases; has extra bandwidth because patent cases have been diverted from his Waco courthouse; and he's willing to hear cases in Austin.

Once it became clear that Judge Albright would be in charge, Apple quickly filed a motion to transfer venue under Section 1404(a) -- arguing that the venue was inconvenient despite the fact that Austin is the company's second-home.  The opposite of Judge Shopping, I might Apple's approach here "Judge Dodging."

by Dennis Crouch

In a nonprecedential disposition issued March 20, 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's denial of a permanent injunction to a patent owner, finding the lower court read Federal Circuit precedent too broadly to categorically preclude injunctions in situations where a patentee has a history of licensing the patent to third parties. In re California Expanded Metal Products Co., No. 2023-1140 (Fed Cir. Mar. 20, 2024). The decision reaffirms that the equitable framework laid out by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. requires a case-by-case analysis of irreparable harm and the other injunction factors, even when the patentee's business model relies on licensing revenue rather than direct competition in practicing the patents. 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).  However, the decision may well be seen simply as distinguishing between exclusive and non-exclusive licensing approaches.

In its decision, the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court's R.59(e) order setting aside the damages verdict -- meaning that although the patentee proved infringement, it will receive $0 in compensatory damages.