Court Opinion

ID: 9369951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 14:00:31.262242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.260411
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1160    Document: 45    Page: 1   Filed: 02/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    IDEAHUB INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                        2022-1160
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 00702.
                  ______________________

                Decided: February 10, 2023
                 ______________________

    KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
 gued for appellant.

     ANGELA M. OLIVER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RAGHAV
 BAJAJ, Austin, TX; DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, DAVID L.
 MCCOMBS, Dallas, TX; MICHELLE ASPEN, ROSHAN
 MANSINGHANI, Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1160     Document: 45     Page: 2     Filed: 02/10/2023

 2                       IDEAHUB INC.   v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STOLL, Circuit
                           Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
      Unified Patents, LLC filed a petition with the United
 States Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter
 partes review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,849. Idea-
 hub, Inc. appeals from the Board’s Final Written Decision
 determining all challenged claims are unpatentable as ob-
 vious over asserted prior art references and denying Idea-
 hub’s motion to amend because the proposed substitute
 claim lacked written description support in the originally
 filed disclosures.
       We affirm. First, the Board’s finding that Kalevo
 teaches determining “the intra mode for the current block
 . . . by using . . . mathematical expressions” is supported by
 substantial evidence, including the disclosure of Kalevo
 and expert testimony interpreting that disclosure. Thus,
 we affirm the Board’s conclusion that the challenged claims
 are unpatentable as obvious. Second, the Board’s finding
 that the portions of the ’849 patent specification that Idea-
 hub identified in its motion to amend and subsequent re-
 vised motion to amend did not provide written description
 support for “determining an intra mode for a neighboring
 block of a current block” is supported by substantial evi-
 dence, including expert testimony explaining the cited por-
 tions of the ’849 specification. We therefore affirm the
 Board’s denial of Ideahub’s revised motion to amend as
 well. Although Ideahub presents new arguments on appeal
 purporting to show that the proposed substitute claim has
 written description support—arguments which may well
 have merit—those arguments were not made before the
 Board and are thus forfeited. In re Google Tech. Holdings
 LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regu-
 larly stated and applied the important principle that a po-
 sition not presented in the tribunal under review will not
Case: 22-1160      Document: 45     Page: 3   Filed: 02/10/2023

 IDEAHUB INC.   v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC                     3

 be considered on appeal in the absence of exceptional cir-
 cumstances.”).
    For the reasons above, we affirm the Board’s Final
 Written Decision in its entirety.
                          AFFIRMED