Earlier this month, in the precedential decision
New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., FKA Bally Gaming, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the ground that the decision issued after the CAFC’s
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision (where the CAFC made administrative patent judges of the Board “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause). New Vision is appealing two covered-business method review final written decisions in which the Board held all claims of the patents at issue patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The CAFC’s opinion, delivered by Judge Moore, is short and largely unremarkable. What is more interesting, however, is Judge Newman’s dissent.
Thursday, May 20, 2021
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a party did not waive the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) constitutionality argument by raising it for the first time in its opening brief because the Court’s decision in
New Vision Gaming v. SG Gaming, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1399, -1400 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2021) (Moore, J.) (Newman, J.
concurring in part, dissenting in part)
New Vision appealed two covered-business method (CBM) review final written decisions in which the Board found that all claims of the patents, as well as its proposed substitute claims, were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In its opening brief before the Federal Circuit, New Vision requested the Court vacate and remand the Board’s decisions in light of
New Vision Has Another Chance to Defend Gaming Patents natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Nos. 20-1399 & 20-1400
Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Taranto, with Judge Moore writing the majority opinion and Judge Newman concurring in part and dissenting in part
You should read this case if: you have an
Arthrex challenge not raised before the agency or you have an IPR or CBM with a forum-selection clause issue
The majority opinion in our case of the week is just one paragraph long. But this short precedential decision packs a punch, resolving one important issue and implicating several more.
The issue the Court resolved concerns
Arthrex. The appellant here challenged the Board’s decision in a CBM review on
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC
, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), often cited for the proposition that a patentee does not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum merely by sending correspondence asserting patent infringement by a resident of the forum. On the facts presented, the Court found that a patentee’s negotiations with a California-headquartered corporation supported jurisdiction in the Northern District of California for the corporation’s declaratory judgment action, reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.