Source: https://federalcircuitipblog.com/2017/05/01/spotlight-on-upcoming-oral-arguments-may-2017/
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 00:00:22
Document Index: 797367870

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 314', '§ 314', '§ 314', '§ 315']

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – May 2017 | Federal Circuit IP Blog
Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – May 2017	Authors: Caitlin O’Connell
GoDaddy.com v. Rpost Communications, No. 16-2335, Courtroom 402
This appeal arises from a D. Ariz. decision in which Rpost’s patents were held invalid under § 101. Rpost argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear GoDaddy’s § 101 challenge because patent ineligibility is not an enumerated litigation defense under § 282(b). GoDaddy argues that the Federal Circuit has long recognized that § 282 defenses include the “conditions of patentability” in § 101. This issue will be addressed in light of the Court’s holding in Versata v. SAP Am., in which the Court determined that the PTAB has the authority to consider § 101 challenges.
Shinn Fu Co. of America v. Tire Hanger Corp, No. 16-2250, Courtroom 203
Shinn Fu appeals the PTAB’s grant of Tire Hanger’s motion to amend its claims. Shinn Fu argues that Tire Hanger failed to carry its burden to prove the patentability of its substitute claims because it did not address every possible combination of the prior art of record. Tire Hanger argues that the Board does not have to address every possible combination of the prior art of record when considering a motion to amend.
Google v. Intellectual Ventures II, No. 16-1543, Courtroom 201
Google appeals from a PTAB decision finding the ’690 patent was not invalid as anticipated. Google argues that the Board erred in finding that the prior art did not disclose “logical operators,” which it characterizes as “basic, well-known elements of computer science.” Intellectual Ventures argues that Google failed to carry its burden of establishing unpatentability as its petition did not show that the prior art expressly or inherently disclosed “logical operators.”
Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom, No. 15-1944, Courtroom 201
In this en banc appeal, the Federal Circuit will address whether § 314(d) precludes review of the Board’s determination that the Petitioner satisfied the timeliness requirement for filing an IPR petition. Broadcom argues that under the Court’s decision in Achates, there is no exception under § 314(d) for review of the Board’s timeliness determination. Wi-Fi One argues that Achates should not be construed so strictly and that § 314(d) only precludes interlocutory appeal of the Board’s institution, not the reviewability of the Board’s compliance with the time-bar of § 315(b) on appeal of a final written decision.