Innovators News Hubb
Advertisement Banner
  • Home
  • Innovation News
  • Invention News
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Innovation News
  • Invention News
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Gourmet News Hubb
No Result
View All Result
Home Invention News

Patent Owner Scores Partial Win Against Google at CAFC

admin by admin
December 8, 2022
in Invention News


“Hammond disputed that claim 18 of the ’816 patent and claim 18 of the ’483 patent presented identical issues of patentability. But the CAFC said only the language differed, and the question of patentability was not materially altered by those differences.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision partially reversing and partially affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had found Google failed to prove certain claims of Hammond Development International’s U.S. Patent No. 10,270,816 unpatentable.

Hammond’s patent covers “a communication system that allows a communication device to remotely execute one or more applications.” Google petitioned for inter partes review of all claims of the ‘816 patent, arguing they would have been obvious over various combinations of the prior art. The PTAB ultimately held claims 1-13 and 20-30 would have been obvious but that Google failed to prove claims 14-19 unpatentable.

On appeal, Google argued that the Board’s finding of unpatentability in a previous IPR of Hammond’s U.S. Patent No. 9,264,483 renders claim 18 of the ‘816 patent unpatentable based on collateral estoppel. After finding that Google had not forfeited its collateral estoppel argument by failing to raise it in its petition because the final written decisions on the ‘483 IPR were issued after it had filed its IPR on the ‘816 patent, the CAFC agreed with Google that claim 18 was collaterally estopped. Since the patentability of claim 14 of the ‘816 patent “rises and falls with claim 18,” the court also found claim 14 unpatentable.

Hammond disputed that claim 18 of the ’816 patent and claim 18 of the ’483 patent presented identical issues of patentability. But the CAFC said only the language differed, and the question of patentability was not materially altered by those differences. The court explained:

“Both claims recite a communication system which allows a communication device to remotely execute one or more applications, wherein an application server communicates a request for processing service to the communication device and that request includes an instruction to present the user with voice or audio data…. The only difference between the claims is the language describing the number of application servers.”

Thus, collateral estoppel applied to claim 18, which also rendered claim 14 unpatentable.

However, the CAFC dismissed Google’s argument that dependent claims 15–17 and 19 should fall based on collateral estoppel as well. The court said that Google failed to raise any collateral estoppel arguments with respect to those claims, and it was not agreed that those claims necessarily fall with the unpatentability of claim 18. “The Board held that Google failed to show these dependent claims would have been obvious,” wrote the court. “Google, who bears the burden on appeal, has failed to convince us that the Board’s determinations should be reversed.”

Eileen McDermott image

Eileen McDermott

Eileen McDermott is the Editor-in-Chief of IPWatchdog.com. Eileen is a veteran IP and legal journalist, and no stranger to the intellectual property world, having held editorial and managerial positions at […see more]



Source link

Previous Post

Secluded Tree-Mimicking Cabins : II Pino

Next Post

Pokey patch painlessly monitors drug levels in patients’ bloodstreams

Next Post

Pokey patch painlessly monitors drug levels in patients' bloodstreams

Recommended

The IP Rights Covering Virtual Environments, First-Person Shooters and the Marvel Cinematic Universe

1 month ago

How Your App Can Unleash the Power of AI (and Why It Should)

4 weeks ago

The PTAB Simply ‘Hasn’t Worked Out’ as Intended

5 days ago

New pacemaker leads would dissolve in the body when no longer needed

3 months ago

IPWatchdog Event to Review the State of the PTAB; US Inventor Protests in D.C.; and the House Considers Supply Chain Challenges

7 days ago

SCOTUS Sustains Blow to Patent Prosecution Practice in Denying Juno v. Kite Rehearing

1 week ago

© 2022 Innovators News Hubb All rights reserved.

Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement unless specified. By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • Innovation News
  • Invention News
  • Contact

Newsletter Sign Up.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Innovation News
  • Invention News
  • Contact

© 2022 Innovators News Hubb All rights reserved.