Tuesday, July 28, 2020

CAFC addresses 101 issues in proposed substitute claims in IPR proceedings in UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC

The outcome

Appellant Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) appeals the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial
and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) denial of its motion for rehearing in the inter partes review (“IPR”) of Uniloc’s U.S.
Patent No. 8,566,960 (“the ’960 patent”), arguing that
“[t]he PTAB misapprehended the law in concluding it is
permissible in an IPR proceeding for the [PTAB] to consider a § 101 challenge” to Uniloc’s proposed substitute
claims (“the Substitute Claims”). J.A. 597; see J.A. 596–
602 (Uniloc’s Request for Rehearing). In denying Uniloc’s
request, the PTAB concluded that it may analyze § 101
patent eligibility for proposed substitute claims. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Uniloc Lux. S.A. (“Rehearing Denial”), No.
IPR2017-00948, 2019 WL 343802, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18,
2019). The USPTO Director designated the Rehearing Denial as precedential. See id.
Uniloc timely appealed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142,
and 319. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.


Post a Comment

<< Home