VIRNETX INC., v. APPLE, INC.
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Summary: Patent Owner Vertnetx Inc. (“Virnetx”) was collaterally estopped from arguing that a reference was not a printed publication because the Federal Circuit had already determined the reference was a printed publication in a Rule 36 judgement in a separate but related appeal.
Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed multiple IPR petitions against Virnetx’s patents. Many of Apple’s petitions relied on the same reference (RFC 2401). In each of the cases, Virnetx argued that the RFC 2401 reference was not a printed publication. During the pendency of this case, the Federal Circuit affirmed, via a Rule 36 judgment, the Board’s decision in a related case that the RFC 2401 reference was a printed publication as of the relevant priority date.
The Federal Circuit found that Virnetx was collaterally estopped from arguing the printed publication issue because the issue was necessary or essential to the prior judgment. The Federal Circuit found that each ground of unpatentability in the prior appeal relied on RFC 240, and found that Virnetx even conceded during oral argument that the printed publication issue was a threshold issue in the prior case.
Virnetx, in the alternative, then pointed to a “single, generic paragraph” and argued that it preserved in its opening brief the separate issue of whether IPR procedures apply retroactively to patents that were filed before Congress enacted the AIA. The Federal Circuit found that Virnetx conceded in oral argument that it “didn’t specifically brief” the retroactivity issue and that Virnetx’s actions to preserve this issue suggested that Virnetx’s actions were “likely less than sincere.”
Thus, the Federal Circuit found that Virnetx’s did not preserve the retroactivity issue and that Virnetx’ was collaterally estopped from raising the printed publication issue, which resolved all other issues on appeal.
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…