Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01768/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kingston Technology Company, Inc.
Appellee
Polaris Innovations Limited
Appellant
United States
Intervenor

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,

Appellant

v.

KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,

Appellee

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-1768

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01621.

______________________

Decided: January 31, 2020

______________________

MATTHEW D. POWERS, Tensegrity Law Group LLP, 

Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER ROBINSON; AZRA HADZIMEHMEDOVIC,

AARON MATTHEW NATHAN, SAMANTHA A. JAMESON,

McLean, VA; NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN, KENNETH J.

WEATHERWAX, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

Case: 18-1768 Document: 106 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2020
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY

CO. INC.

2

 MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, Fish & Richardson PC, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Austin, TX. 

 MELISSA N. PATTERSON, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by COURTNEY DIXON,

DENNIS FAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. 

 ______________________

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In its opening brief, Polaris Innovations Limited argues that the final written decision at issue in this appeal 

exceeds the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s 

authority and violates the Constitution’s Appointments 

Clause. See Appellant’s Br. 52 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, 

§ 2, cl. 2). This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex, 

Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 

2019). Accordingly, the Board’s decision in No. IPR2016-

01621 is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for 

proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 18-1768 Document: 106 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2020