Technology & Information Law Blog by Charles Gideon Korrell

Tag: PTAB

  • Causam v. ecobee Technologies: Standing, Due Process, and Why the Merits Still Matter

    Causam v. ecobee Technologies: Standing, Due Process, and Why the Merits Still Matter

    On the same day the Federal Circuit dismissed Causam’s ITC appeal as moot, it issued the companion decision that explains why the appeal became moot in the first place. In Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Technologies ULC, No. 24-1958 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), the court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision holding nearly all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 unpatentable for obviousness.

    As discussed in the prior post analyzing Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, this PTAB affirmance ultimately deprived Causam of any legally cognizable interest in reversing the Commission’s noninfringement determination. But the ecobee decision is not merely background noise to the ITC appeal. It stands on its own as a useful opinion on Article III standing in PTAB appeals, the limits of ownership-based due process arguments in inter partes review, and straightforward claim construction grounded firmly in the specification.

    Procedural Posture and Relationship to the ITC Case

    The ’268 patent concerns demand-response technology for managing electrical power consumption. ecobee petitioned for inter partes review of all claims except claim 12, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review and ultimately held all challenged claims unpatentable.

    While the IPR was pending, Causam pursued a Section 337 action at the ITC asserting claim 1 of the same patent. As detailed in the prior post, the Federal Circuit held in the ITC appeal that Causam did, in fact, own the ’268 patent, but dismissed the appeal as moot because the claims had been invalidated in the PTAB proceeding affirmed here.

    That sequencing matters. The ecobee decision is the merits determination that mooted the ITC appeal. But it also independently addresses standing and ownership in a PTAB context, reaching conclusions that dovetail with, but are doctrinally distinct from, the ITC opinion.

    Article III Standing in PTAB Appeals

    The court first addressed whether Causam had constitutional standing to appeal the Board’s decision. Unlike district court litigation, PTAB proceedings do not require Article III standing. But standing is mandatory once the case reaches the Federal Circuit.

    The panel reiterated the now-familiar framework drawn from Phigenix, Shenyang Yuanda, and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA: an appellant from an agency adjudication bears a burden equivalent to that of a summary-judgment movant. The appellant must either point to record evidence sufficient to establish standing or submit additional evidence on appeal if the agency record is silent.

    Here, standing turned solely on ownership of the ’268 patent. Unlike in the ITC appeal, there was no adverse agency finding on ownership, no competing evidence in the record, and no party before the Board or on appeal actually disputing that Causam owned the patent. Causam was the assignee of record, unequivocally identified itself as the owner, and no contrary evidence was presented.

    On that record, the court had little difficulty concluding that Causam satisfied Article III standing. Notably, the court contrasted this evidentiary showing with the more demanding inquiry required in the ITC appeal, where ownership had been litigated and resolved as a legal question of contract interpretation. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, taken together, the two decisions illustrate that standing analysis is context-sensitive: where ownership is genuinely disputed and adjudicated, it must be resolved; where it is uncontested and supported by record evidence, the court will not manufacture a controversy.

    Rejection of the Due Process Ownership Argument

    Causam’s primary procedural argument on appeal was more ambitious. It contended that the Board committed a constitutional error by failing to determine the “true” owner of the ’268 patent, thereby depriving that unidentified owner of notice and an opportunity to be heard.

    The Federal Circuit rejected this argument on multiple grounds.

    First, the court emphasized the basic principle that litigants generally lack standing to assert the constitutional rights of third parties. Any due process right to notice would belong to the hypothetical true owner, not to Causam. And Causam’s interests were not aligned with that hypothetical party; Causam affirmatively claimed that it, and no one else, owned the patent.

    Second, the court observed that Causam never actually asked the Board to decide ownership. Instead, Causam argued that ecobee should be deemed to have conceded that someone else owned the patent, which would supposedly defeat the statutory service requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312. That position did not require, or even invite, a Board determination of ownership.

    Finally, the court implicitly signaled skepticism toward attempts to dress up statutory or procedural objections as constitutional claims in order to evade the limits on appellate review of institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Read alongside recent cases addressing unreviewability, the message is clear: ownership disputes do not automatically transform IPR institution or service issues into due process violations.

    Claim Construction of “Measurement and Verification Data”

    On the merits, Causam challenged the Board’s construction of a claim limitation common to all challenged claims: “generating measurement and verification data corresponding to the reduction in consumed power.”

    Causam argued that this language required generation of measurement and verification data during the demand-response event itself. The Board disagreed, construing the limitation to encompass both actual measurements and estimates of savings based on known device power usage, including data derived before or after a demand-response event.

    The Federal Circuit affirmed. The court began with the claim language, noting that nothing in the text imposes a temporal restriction on when the data must be generated. The phrase “corresponding to the reduction in consumed power” does not, by itself, require contemporaneous measurement.

    The specification reinforced that conclusion. The court pointed to embodiments in which the system relies on pre-event measurements of device power consumption and calculates savings based on those known values when loads are shed. Other embodiments describe post-event calculations using actual or average power consumption that would have occurred during the event. Limiting the claims to real-time measurement during the event would exclude disclosed embodiments, a result disfavored under established claim-construction principles.

    Because Causam’s obviousness arguments depended entirely on its proposed narrow construction, rejection of that construction doomed the appeal. The Board’s obviousness determination therefore stood without the need for extended analysis.

    Why This Decision Merits Separate Attention

    As explained in the prior post, the ITC appeal ultimately turned on standing and mootness. This decision, by contrast, does the substantive work of affirming claim invalidity. It also clarifies several recurring issues in PTAB practice: what is required to establish standing on appeal, who may raise due process objections based on ownership, and how the court approaches claim construction where the specification is explicit about alternative ways of generating data.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes the pairing of these two opinions is instructive. Together, they show how parallel PTAB and ITC proceedings can intersect in unpredictable ways, and how a clean affirmance on the merits can erase years of litigation elsewhere. The ecobee decision is not dramatic, but it is disciplined, careful, and likely to be cited for its standing analysis and its rejection of ownership-based procedural maneuvering in IPRs.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • US Inventor, Inc. v. USPTO: Standing Doctrine Closes the Courthouse Door on AIA Rulemaking Challenges

    US Inventor, Inc. v. USPTO: Standing Doctrine Closes the Courthouse Door on AIA Rulemaking Challenges

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 2024-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), reinforces a familiar but increasingly consequential theme in administrative patent law: access to judicial review turns first, and often last, on Article III standing. Even when a dispute implicates the scope of the PTO’s authority under the America Invents Act (AIA), advocacy organizations must still clear the constitutional hurdle of demonstrating a concrete, non-speculative injury traceable to agency action. In US Inventor, the court concluded they could not.

    Background: A Petition for Rulemaking Meets a Jurisdictional Wall

    US Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United filed a joint petition in 2020 asking the PTO to adopt new regulations limiting discretionary institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). Their proposal would have amended 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108 and 42.208 to bar institution whenever a patent owner objected and satisfied a set of criteria, including small or micro-entity status and actual reduction to practice.

    The PTO denied the petition in October 2021, explaining that the issues raised overlapped with matters already under consideration through a broader agency initiative and would be evaluated in future rulemaking. Dissatisfied, the organizations sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the AIA. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the appeal ultimately landed at the Federal Circuit after transfer from the D.C. Circuit.

    The Issue on Appeal: Associational Standing

    On appeal, the plaintiffs abandoned any claim of organizational standing and pressed only associational standing. Under D.C. Circuit law, which the Federal Circuit applied, an association must show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue in their own right, that the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and that the claim does not require individual member participation.

    Only the first element was contested. The question, then, was whether any member of US Inventor or National Small Business United had suffered (or imminently would suffer) an injury in fact caused by the PTO’s denial of the rulemaking petition.

    Injury in Fact and the “Speculative Chain” Problem

    The asserted injury was the “risk of cancellation” of members’ patents resulting from discretionary institution of IPR or PGR proceedings. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that this theory rested on an extended chain of contingencies dependent on third-party actions.

    As Judge Reyna’s opinion explained, several events would have to occur before any member faced actual harm: a third party would need to file a petition challenging the member’s patent; the petition would need to meet statutory thresholds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 324(a); the PTAB would need to exercise discretion to institute despite any mitigating factors; and the institution would need to materially increase the likelihood of claim cancellation relative to other forums. At least one, and often several, links in that chain were speculative.

    Citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the court emphasized that allegations of future injury must be “certainly impending” or present a “substantial risk” of harm. Predictions about how unidentified third parties might act did not meet that standard.

    Why 10Tales Was Not Enough

    The appellants pointed to one specific member, 10Tales, which had previously faced an IPR petition that was denied on the merits. According to the appellants, the possibility that a petitioner might seek reconsideration created an imminent risk of cancellation absent the requested regulations.

    The court rejected that argument. Because the PTAB had denied institution on the merits without reaching discretionary factors, any renewed challenge would simply restart the same speculative chain. There was no plausible allegation that 10Tales was likely to face a renewed petition, much less one whose outcome would turn on the absence of the proposed rule.

    Distinguishing Apple v. Vidal

    A central feature of the opinion is its comparison to Apple Inc. v. Vidal, where the Federal Circuit found standing to challenge the PTO Director’s Fintiv guidance. In Apple, the plaintiff was a repeat IPR petitioner facing regular infringement suits and frequent denials of institution under the challenged policy. Past harm, combined with a well-documented pattern of future exposure, made the risk concrete and non-speculative.

    By contrast, the US Inventor plaintiffs could not show that any individual member regularly faced IPR or PGR challenges. Nor were their members the parties filing petitions. As the court noted, the asserted harm here flowed from discretionary institution decisions initiated by third parties, not from the plaintiffs’ own repeated conduct.

    This distinction matters. Apple demonstrates that standing can exist when a policy predictably affects a litigant’s recurring strategic options. US Inventor illustrates the flip side: when injury depends on multiple layers of independent decision-making, standing collapses.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that this contrast underscores how fact-intensive standing has become in AIA-related challenges, with courts demanding granular allegations tied to specific litigants rather than generalized concerns about systemic fairness.

    Procedural Rights Are Not Enough

    The appellants also argued that denial of their rulemaking petition itself constituted injury, because the APA grants a procedural right to petition agencies. The Federal Circuit rejected that theory as well, relying on D.C. Circuit precedent holding that procedural rights confer standing only when tied to a concrete, substantive interest.

    Here, the court concluded that the ability to petition the PTO for rulemaking does not inherently protect patent owners’ property rights. Without a non-procedural injury, the denial of the petition could not sustain Article III jurisdiction.

    The Shadow of Ongoing Rulemaking

    Notably, the PTO issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 2023 and a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2024 addressing discretionary institution practices. The government argued that these developments mooted the appeal. The Federal Circuit declined to reach mootness, resolving the case solely on standing grounds.

    That restraint is telling. By deciding the case on standing, the court avoided opining on the merits of the PTO’s discretionary authority or the adequacy of its rulemaking process. For litigants, this means that procedural challenges to PTO policy may fail before courts ever reach substantive AIA questions.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes this outcome reflects a broader judicial preference for jurisdictional gatekeeping in administrative patent disputes, particularly where agency discretion intersects with political and policy-laden choices.

    Implications for Small Inventors and Advocacy Groups

    The practical effect of US Inventor is to narrow the path for inventor organizations seeking to influence PTO policy through litigation. Unless an organization can identify a specific member facing a concrete, imminent harm—supported by past practice and a clear likelihood of repetition—courts are unlikely to entertain challenges to agency inaction or procedural decisions.

    This does not mean such organizations are without recourse. Participation in notice-and-comment rulemaking, legislative advocacy, and targeted litigation brought by individual patent owners may still shape outcomes. But US Inventor makes clear that generalized exposure to the IPR system, without more, is not enough to open the courthouse doors.

    Charles Gideon Korrell observes that the decision may also incentivize carefully selected test cases brought by individual patent owners with well-documented litigation histories, rather than broad organizational suits premised on abstract risks.

    Conclusion

    US Inventor v. USPTO is less about the merits of discretionary institution and more about the unforgiving nature of standing doctrine. By reaffirming that speculative chains of causation cannot support Article III jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit has effectively limited judicial review of PTO rulemaking denials to plaintiffs who can show concrete, repeat exposure to the challenged practices. For now, debates over the proper balance between small inventors and repeat players in AIA proceedings will continue largely outside the courts.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Bayer Pharma v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals: When “Clinically Proven Effective” Cannot Rescue an Anticipated Treatment Method

    Bayer Pharma v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals: When “Clinically Proven Effective” Cannot Rescue an Anticipated Treatment Method

    The Federal Circuit’s September 23, 2025 decision in Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 23-2434, delivers a sharp reminder that post-hoc validation, even in the form of successful clinical trial results, does not automatically translate into patentability. The opinion clarifies the limits of method-of-treatment claims that attempt to rely on clinical proof language to distinguish otherwise anticipated dosing regimens, while also providing important guidance on claim construction in combination-therapy claims.

    The case arose from inter partes review proceedings challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310, which describes the results of Bayer’s COMPASS Phase III clinical trial evaluating low-dose rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). While the clinical trial itself was significant, the Federal Circuit emphasized that patentability must turn on what the claims require a practitioner to do, not on what later evidence proves about the outcomes.

    The court ultimately affirmed the PTAB’s unpatentability determinations for claims 1–4, vacated the unpatentability determinations for claims 5–8 based on an erroneous claim construction, and remanded for further proceedings. Along the way, the opinion addressed four recurring issues in pharmaceutical patent litigation: (1) the role of “clinically proven effective” language, (2) construction of combination-product claims, (3) motivation to combine prior art clinical disclosures, and (4) the limits of unexpected-results evidence.

    The COMPASS Claims and the Prior Art

    The ’310 patent claims methods of reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death by administering rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily together with aspirin at 75–100 mg daily. Claims 1–4 broadly recite administering those agents at the specified dosages, while claims 5–8 add a requirement that the method involve “once daily administration of a first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” and “a second product comprising rivaroxaban.”

    The IPR petitions relied primarily on two references. The first was a 2016 journal article by Foley summarizing the then-ongoing COMPASS trial, including the exact dosing regimen later claimed, but without disclosing the trial’s results. The second was a 2014 article by Plosker describing the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial, which disclosed similar low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimens in cardiovascular patients.

    The PTAB concluded that claims 1–2 were anticipated by Foley and that claims 1–8 were obvious over Foley alone or in combination with Plosker. Bayer appealed.

    “Clinically Proven Effective” and the Functional Relationship Test

    A central dispute on appeal concerned the claim phrase “clinically proven effective.” Bayer argued that this language was limiting and required proof of efficacy through clinical trials, which Foley did not disclose. The Board had concluded that the phrase was non-limiting, or alternatively, inherently anticipated.

    The Federal Circuit sidestepped that debate entirely. Instead, it held that even if “clinically proven effective” were treated as a limiting element, it could not confer patentability because it lacked a new and unobvious functional relationship with the claimed method. Drawing heavily on King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court explained that an otherwise anticipated method cannot be rescued by adding a limitation that merely describes information about the method or its later validation.

    As the court put it, proof that a dosing regimen worked in a clinical trial “in no way transforms the process of taking the drugs” at the claimed doses and frequencies. The actual steps performed by the physician or patient remain unchanged, regardless of whether the regimen has been clinically validated. Allowing patentees to “claw back” known treatment methods from the public domain simply by pointing to later-obtained clinical success would undermine fundamental limits on patent scope.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that this portion of the opinion is particularly important for pharmaceutical lifecycle management strategies that rely on clinical trial milestones rather than changes to dosing, formulation, or administration. The court’s analysis reinforces that validation alone is not innovation, at least for purposes of patentability.

    Distinguishing Allergan and Open-Ended Claim Drafting

    Bayer argued that Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., 935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019), compelled a different result. In Allergan, the court held that certain “wherein” clauses specifying minimum safety and efficacy thresholds were limiting and material to patentability.

    The Federal Circuit rejected the comparison. Unlike the open-ended composition claims in Allergan, which could encompass a wide range of formulations meeting the recited concentration requirements, the Bayer claims already fixed the precise dosages of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The “clinically proven effective” language did not further narrow the universe of covered methods. As Charles Gideon Korrell observes, the opinion underscores a drafting lesson: functional or results-based language is far more likely to matter when it genuinely constrains an otherwise open claim scope.

    Claim Construction of the “First Product”

    While Bayer lost on claims 1–4, it prevailed on an important claim construction issue affecting claims 5–8. The PTAB had construed “a first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” to encompass administration of the two drugs as separate dosage forms, whether administered simultaneously or sequentially.

    The Federal Circuit disagreed. Focusing on the plain claim language, the court held that “a first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” requires a single dosage form that includes both active ingredients. Interpreting the term to cover separate pills would render the “first product” language meaningless and collapse the distinction the claims draw between combination and non-combination products.

    The court also found support in the specification, which explicitly distinguishes between “separate dosage forms” and “a combination dosage form containing both rivaroxaban and aspirin.” The Board’s broader construction improperly conflated these concepts. Because the PTAB had not analyzed obviousness under the correct construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the unpatentability determinations for claims 5–8 and remanded.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes this portion of the decision highlights how seemingly modest wording choices can drive materially different outcomes in IPR proceedings, particularly for combination-product claims in the pharmaceutical space.

    Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

    Bayer also challenged the Board’s obviousness analysis for dependent claims reciting specific aspirin dosages (75 mg or 81 mg). The Federal Circuit was unpersuaded. The Board had expressly found that these dosages reflected globally available aspirin strengths and were consistent with the dosage ranges disclosed in Plosker.

    The court reiterated that motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are factual determinations reviewed for substantial evidence. Here, the record supported the Board’s conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had reason to substitute commonly used aspirin dosages with an expectation of success, particularly given that both references addressed reducing cardiovascular risk.

    Unexpected Results and the Nexus Requirement

    Finally, Bayer argued that the clinical proof of efficacy demonstrated by the COMPASS trial constituted unexpected results supporting nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument on nexus grounds.

    The Board had found, and the court agreed, that Bayer’s evidence of unexpected results was tied exclusively to the “clinically proven effective” limitation. Because that limitation was functionally unrelated to the claimed method steps and could not supply patentability, the asserted unexpected results lacked the required nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, this analysis reinforces the principle that secondary considerations must be anchored to what is both claimed and novel. Evidence of success attributable to validation, rather than to a structural or functional distinction over the prior art, will not carry the day.

    Takeaways

    The Bayer decision offers several practical lessons. First, method-of-treatment claims cannot rely on post-hoc clinical validation to rescue known dosing regimens from anticipation or obviousness. Second, careful claim drafting around combination products matters, and courts will enforce distinctions between single-dosage-form products and loose combinations of separate components. Third, secondary considerations must be tied to claim features that actually change how the method operates.

    In short, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that patent law rewards innovation in what practitioners do, not merely confirmation that what they were already doing turns out to work.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner: The Federal Circuit’s First AIA Derivation Appeal Clarifies Conception, Corroboration, and Harmless Error

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner marks the court’s first precedential review of an America Invents Act (AIA) derivation proceeding. In affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s judgment, the court provided much-needed guidance on how AIA derivation proceedings differ from pre-AIA interferences, how conception and communication operate under the statute, and how corroboration principles apply when inventorship disputes turn on contemporaneous electronic evidence.

    At a high level, the decision underscores a central theme of the AIA: first-to-file is the rule, and derivation is the narrow exception. The court repeatedly cautioned against allowing derivation proceedings to become a backdoor revival of first-to-invent interference practice. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, the opinion reflects a broader judicial reluctance to expand statutory exceptions that would undermine the predictability of the AIA’s filing-date-centric framework.

    Background and Competing Applications

    The case arose from competing patent applications directed to an emulsifier-free wound treatment ointment containing nanodroplets of an aqueous biocide suspended in petrolatum. The claimed advance centered on a manufacturing method that separately heats the petrolatum and the biocide to different temperatures before mixing, resulting in a stable suspension without emulsifiers.

    Marc Selner filed his application on August 4, 2017. Four days later, Global Health Solutions LLC (GHS) filed its application naming Bradley Burnam as inventor. It was undisputed that Selner was the first filer and that both applications were governed exclusively by the AIA.

    GHS petitioned for a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 135, alleging that Burnam conceived the invention first and communicated it to Selner, who then derived the invention and filed earlier. The Board instituted the proceeding and ultimately ruled in Selner’s favor, finding that although Burnam had conceived and communicated the invention by 4:04 p.m. on February 14, 2014, Selner had independently conceived the same invention earlier that same day, at 12:55 p.m.

    GHS appealed, raising multiple challenges to the Board’s legal framework, evidentiary rulings, and treatment of conception and corroboration.

    AIA Derivation Is Not Interference by Another Name

    A significant portion of the opinion is devoted to clarifying the legal framework governing AIA derivation proceedings and distinguishing them from pre-AIA interferences. Before the AIA, derivation typically arose within interference proceedings, which focused on determining who invented first. Under that regime, proving derivation required establishing prior conception and communication, often under a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard.

    The AIA eliminated interferences for AIA-governed applications and replaced them with derivation proceedings that serve a narrower function. As the court explained, derivation proceedings do not ask who invented first in an abstract sense. Instead, they ask whether the first filer derived the claimed invention from the second filer before filing.

    To establish a prima facie case of derivation under the AIA, the petitioner must show: (1) conception of the claimed invention, and (2) communication of that conception to the respondent before the respondent’s effective filing date. The respondent may defeat the claim by proving independent conception prior to receiving the communication.

    The Federal Circuit emphasized that while pre-AIA derivation cases can provide helpful guidance, they must be applied cautiously. Judges must avoid inadvertently reintroducing interference concepts that Congress intentionally discarded. Charles Gideon Korrell observes that this portion of the opinion is likely to be cited frequently in future derivation disputes as parties attempt to import familiar interference-era doctrines into AIA proceedings.

    Harmless Error and the Board’s Focus on Earliest Conception

    One of GHS’s principal arguments on appeal was that the Board erred by focusing on which party conceived first, rather than on whether Selner independently conceived the invention before receiving Burnam’s communication. The Federal Circuit agreed that the Board framed its analysis using pre-AIA first-to-invent language, but held that any such error was harmless.

    The reason was straightforward. Selner chose to prove independent conception by showing that he conceived of the invention earlier than Burnam. By doing so, Selner necessarily established that his conception was independent and not derived from Burnam’s later communication. Although the Board’s reasoning tracked interference-style analysis, its factual findings resolved the dispositive AIA question.

    This aspect of the decision is a reminder that not every doctrinal misstep warrants reversal. Under the harmless error rule, the appellant must show not only that an error occurred, but that it affected the outcome. Here, the Board’s findings foreclosed derivation regardless of the analytical path used to reach them.

    Corroboration and the Rule of Reason in the Digital Age

    GHS also argued that Selner failed to adequately corroborate his alleged conception, contending that the Board improperly relied on Selner’s own emails. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and reaffirmed the applicability of the rule-of-reason standard for corroboration.

    Under that standard, all pertinent evidence is considered to determine whether an inventor’s story is credible. Contemporaneous documentary evidence carries particular weight. In this case, Selner introduced emails sent on February 14, 2014, retrieved from his AOL web-based email account by a law clerk from his attorney’s office. The Board credited not only the content of the emails but also their metadata, including timestamps and sender and recipient information.

    The court emphasized that documentary evidence does not require independent corroboration in the same way as testimonial evidence. Moreover, the metadata associated with the emails was not authored by Selner and therefore constituted independent evidence. Additional circumstantial evidence, including later emails in which Burnam referred to the invention as having been “invented” by Selner, further supported the Board’s findings.

    The opinion draws an important distinction between this case and prior decisions in which alleged conception was supported solely by an inventor’s uncorroborated testimony. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, the court’s analysis reflects an evolving understanding of how electronic records and metadata can satisfy corroboration requirements that were developed in a paper-lab-notebook era.

    Conception Without Reduction to Practice

    Another key issue on appeal was whether the nature of the invention required simultaneous conception and reduction to practice. GHS argued that because the invention involved unpredictable chemical properties, conception could not be complete without laboratory verification.

    The Federal Circuit rejected this argument. While acknowledging that certain inventions may require reduction to practice before conception is complete, the court reiterated that this is not a categorical rule for unpredictable fields. An inventor may have a complete conception when they have formed a definite and permanent idea of the invention, including a method of making it, even if the invention has not yet been reduced to practice.

    Here, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Selner had fully conceived the invention by the time he described the method in detail in his February 14 email. The court declined to impose a heightened conception standard that would effectively require experimental success in every chemical or materials-based invention.

    Procedural Missteps and Inventorship Correction

    Finally, GHS sought a remand for the Board to consider whether Burnam should be named as a co-inventor on Selner’s application. The Federal Circuit declined, holding that GHS failed to properly preserve the issue.

    Under the Board’s rules, a request to correct inventorship must be made by separate motion, accompanied by specific documentation and a detailed explanation of the legal and factual basis for relief. GHS did none of this, instead including a single conclusory sentence in its petition and never pursuing the issue again.

    The court held that any failure by the Board to address this undeveloped request was harmless and attributable to GHS’s own procedural shortcomings. Charles Gideon Korrell believes this portion of the decision serves as a cautionary tale for parties attempting to hedge derivation claims with alternative inventorship theories without complying with procedural requirements.

    Takeaways

    Global Health Solutions v. Selner reinforces several important principles for AIA-era inventorship disputes:

    First, derivation remains a narrow exception to first-to-file, and courts will resist efforts to revive interference-style priority contests under a different label.

    Second, independent conception by the first filer, even if established through interference-style evidence, is sufficient to defeat derivation.

    Third, contemporaneous electronic communications and metadata can provide powerful corroboration under the rule-of-reason standard.

    Finally, procedural rigor matters. Requests for alternative relief such as inventorship correction must be properly presented and preserved.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, this decision provides a foundational roadmap for future AIA derivation appeals and underscores the Federal Circuit’s commitment to preserving the structural integrity of the post-AIA patent system.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon: The Federal Circuit Draws a Hard Line on IPR Collateral Estoppel

    Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon: The Federal Circuit Draws a Hard Line on IPR Collateral Estoppel

    The Federal Circuit’s August 1, 2025 order denying rehearing en banc in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 23-1359, leaves intact a panel decision that sharply limits the collateral-estoppel effect of PTAB unpatentability decisions in subsequent district court litigation. The denial is notable not because of its brevity—en banc denials are routine—but because of the deep doctrinal divide exposed by the concurring and dissenting opinions. At stake is a recurring and high-impact question under the America Invents Act (AIA): whether a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR), affirmed on appeal, should preclude a patentee from asserting patentably indistinct claims in district court.

    The answer, for now, is no. But the path the court took to get there—and the objections raised by dissenting judges—signal continuing instability in the law governing the relationship between PTAB proceedings and Article III patent litigation.

    Background: From IPR Cancellation to District Court Do-Over

    Kroy IP Holdings asserted a subset of claims from a patent with more than 100 claims against Groupon in district court. Groupon responded with an IPR petition, and the PTAB ultimately held a group of claims unpatentable as obvious. That unpatentability determination was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. After the IPR cancellation, Kroy amended its district court complaint—not to reassert the cancelled claims, but to assert a different set of claims from the same patent.

    The district court concluded that the newly asserted claims were not materially different from the claims invalidated in the IPR and therefore barred by collateral estoppel. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed. The panel held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the PTAB applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, while district court invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. According to the panel, that difference in burdens of proof is dispositive.

    Groupon sought rehearing en banc, supported by amicus briefing emphasizing the AIA’s goal of reducing duplicative patent litigation and elevating PTAB adjudications as a substitute for district court validity proceedings. The court denied rehearing, but not quietly.

    Chief Judge Moore’s Concurrence: No Patent-Specific Estoppel Rules

    Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, concurred in the denial of rehearing en banc. Her opinion is framed as a warning against patent exceptionalism. The Supreme Court, she emphasized, has repeatedly cautioned lower courts against creating patent-specific deviations from generally applicable legal doctrines. Collateral estoppel is one such doctrine.

    Under longstanding preclusion principles, collateral estoppel does not apply when a later action involves a materially different legal standard—most notably, a higher burden of proof. Citing B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. and Grogan v. Garner, Chief Judge Moore reasoned that a finding of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence does not necessarily establish invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The doctrinal mismatch, in her view, ends the inquiry.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that policy arguments favoring efficiency or uniformity, she cautioned, cannot override these general principles. Nor does the AIA compel a different result. Parties concerned about duplicative litigation can file additional IPR petitions or challenge claims directly before the PTAB, rather than stretching collateral-estoppel doctrine beyond its traditional limits.

    In short, the concurrence frames the case as a straightforward application of black-letter preclusion law—one that resists importing policy-driven exceptions into the doctrine merely because the subject matter is patent law.

    Judge Dyk’s Dissent: The AIA Demands More

    Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, took a sharply different view. In his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Dyk characterized the panel decision as fundamentally inconsistent with both Federal Circuit precedent and the structure and purpose of the AIA.

    The dissent begins with the court’s own case law. In XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., the Federal Circuit held that an affirmed PTAB unpatentability decision has “immediate issue-preclusive effect” in co-pending district court actions. According to Judge Dyk, the panel decision in Kroy cannot be squared with XY and effectively overrules it sub silentio.

    More importantly, the dissent situates collateral estoppel within the broader framework of Congressional intent. Supreme Court precedent, including Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Solimino and University of Tennessee v. Elliott, makes clear that preclusion principles must sometimes be adapted to statutory schemes. For Judge Dyk, the AIA is precisely such a scheme.

    Congress created IPRs to provide a faster, cheaper, expert alternative to district court litigation over patent validity. Allowing patentees to relitigate patentably indistinct claims in district court—after losing before the PTAB—undermines that objective. The dissent draws an analogy to Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, where the Supreme Court modified traditional estoppel rules to prevent repeated validity challenges and the “aura of the gaming table” that accompanied them.

    Judge Dyk also emphasized practical consequences. Patents often contain dozens or hundreds of claims. If a patentee can avoid estoppel simply by asserting slightly modified or previously unasserted claims, IPRs lose much of their preclusive force. The dissent warned that patentees may strategically withhold claims from litigation or continuation practice to evade IPR estoppel, shifting costs back to district courts and defendants.

    A Doctrinal Fault Line That Isn’t Going Away

    The denial of rehearing en banc leaves the panel decision intact, but it does not resolve the underlying tension. On one side is a formalist application of collateral-estoppel doctrine grounded in differing burdens of proof. On the other is a functionalist approach that treats IPR decisions as in rem determinations of patentability, consistent with the AIA’s purpose of reducing duplicative litigation.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that this divide reflects a deeper uncertainty about how PTAB adjudications should fit within the federal judicial system. Are they merely parallel administrative proceedings with limited spillover effects, or are they meant to serve as authoritative substitutes for district court validity trials? The Federal Circuit’s current answer appears to be “sometimes,” depending on how closely one adheres to traditional estoppel doctrine.

    From a strategic standpoint, the decision favors patentees. By carefully sequencing claims and proceedings, patent owners may preserve district court enforcement options even after losing an IPR. For accused infringers, the ruling reinforces the need for early, comprehensive IPR strategies—or parallel district court invalidity defenses that anticipate post-IPR claim reshuffling.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes the issue is unlikely to remain settled for long. The frequency with which PTAB decisions intersect with district court litigation, combined with the court’s internal division, makes future en banc review—or Supreme Court intervention—a real possibility. Until then, Kroy stands as a reminder that, despite the AIA’s ambitions, patent validity disputes still have multiple lives.

    Charles Gideon Korrell also observes that the decision places renewed pressure on Congress if true substitution of PTAB proceedings for district court litigation is the goal. Without clearer statutory guidance on estoppel, courts will continue to toggle between doctrinal purity and policy pragmatism—often with significant consequences for patent litigation strategy.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.: Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision on Licensing Nexus in Obviousness Analysis

    Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.: Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision on Licensing Nexus in Obviousness Analysis

    In the June 16, 2025 decision of Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two inter partes review (IPR) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941—owned by Ancora Technologies, Inc.—to be unpatentable as obvious. While the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of the key term “agent” and upheld its prima facie case of obviousness based on prior art, it held that the PTAB legally erred in dismissing Ancora’s license evidence as lacking a sufficient nexus to the claimed invention. This case offers important guidance on the evidentiary treatment of licenses as objective indicia of nonobviousness.

    The Patent at Issue: Software Licensing and BIOS Security

    Ancora’s ’941 patent addresses software license enforcement mechanisms by embedding license verification structures in the erasable, non-volatile memory of a computer’s BIOS. This technique is intended to secure software against unauthorized use without relying on more volatile or easily altered memory. The method described in claim 1 includes:

    1. Selecting a program in volatile memory (e.g., RAM),
    2. Using an “agent” to set up a verification structure (including at least one license record) in the erasable, non-volatile BIOS memory (e.g., EEPROM),
    3. Verifying the program using the verification structure, and
    4. Acting on the program based on the verification result.

    Claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16 were challenged and ultimately invalidated in IPRs filed by Nintendo, Roku, and VIZIO.

    The PTAB’s Decision: Obviousness Based on Hellman and Chou

    The PTAB found that the challenged claims were obvious over a combination of two prior art references:

    • Hellman (U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093): Discloses a system using hash functions and non-volatile memory to control software use based on allowed instances.
    • Chou (U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906): Describes BIOS-based security methods for verifying passwords and controlling hardware access.

    The Board determined that Hellman provided the base mechanism for license enforcement and that Chou taught the use of BIOS memory for secure storage. Ancora argued that this combination was inoperable and lacked a motivation to combine, but the Board found otherwise and rejected Ancora’s claims as obvious.

    The Board construed the term “agent” in the claims as “a software program or routine,” declining Ancora’s argument that the term should be limited to software running at the OS level. Relying on intrinsic evidence and dictionaries, the Board found no disavowal or redefinition requiring a narrower construction.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the Federal Circuit gave deference to the Board’s reliance on extrinsic evidence, including industry definitions and expert declarations, and determined that “agent” was not limited to software-only or OS-level implementations. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s construction.

    Secondary Considerations: Licensing and the Nexus Requirement

    The Federal Circuit’s principal disagreement with the Board lay in its treatment of Ancora’s license agreements as objective indicia of nonobviousness.

    Ancora had presented multiple licenses entered into after extended litigation, many just before trial and with substantial royalty payments. The PTAB found that Ancora failed to show a nexus between these licenses and the specific claims of the ’941 patent, concluding that they could reflect business decisions to avoid litigation rather than recognition of the patent’s strength.

    The Federal Circuit sharply criticized this reasoning:

    “Licenses to the challenged patent then, unlike products or other forms of objective evidence of nonobviousness, do not require a nexus with respect to the specific claims at issue…”

    Citing LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Institut Pasteur v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the court emphasized that actual licenses to the patented technology are highly probative of nonobviousness and should not be subject to the same parsing applied to commercial product evidence.

    In the court’s view, according to Charles Gideon Korrell, the Board erred by demanding a higher evidentiary burden than the law requires. Even if the licenses also referenced related patents or included redacted sections, that did not undermine the fact that they expressly covered the ’941 patent. The Board’s approach “too finely parsed” the record and ignored the licensing context: settlements reached after years of litigation and near trial dates, with substantial consideration paid.

    Charles Gideon Korrell explains that the Federal Circuit’s holding here confirms that the economic behavior of parties—especially sophisticated technology companies licensing patents to avoid trial—is relevant and weighty evidence of the patent’s nonobviousness, even where the license bundles multiple rights.

    Remedy and Remand

    Although the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction and the Board’s finding of a prima facie case of obviousness, it vacated the Board’s decision due to legal error in the analysis of secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB must:

    1. Re-evaluate the nexus between the challenged claims and Ancora’s licenses under the proper legal standard,
    2. Weigh this licensing evidence, including both high- and low-value settlements, as part of its overall nonobviousness analysis.

    This remand could potentially alter the outcome if the Board concludes that the licenses provide significant objective evidence supporting the validity of the challenged claims.

    Conclusion

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. underscores the importance of properly evaluating licensing evidence in an obviousness analysis. While upholding a broad construction of “agent” and affirming the prima facie obviousness of the claims, the court found fault with the PTAB’s overly narrow view of what constitutes a nexus between a patent and license agreements. The decision reinforces that real-world licensing behavior—especially in litigation contexts—can and should play a meaningful role in the nonobviousness inquiry.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes this decision will have broad implications for how PTAB and district courts assess secondary considerations in IPR and invalidity proceedings. In particular, it may offer patent holders new avenues to bolster the validity of their claims with well-supported licensing histories.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC: No Standing to Appeal IPR RPI Dispute

    Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC: No Standing to Appeal IPR RPI Dispute

    In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025), the Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal for lack of Article III standing. Although Dolby had prevailed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Unified Patents, it sought to appeal the Board’s refusal to adjudicate a dispute over the petition’s Real Party in Interest (RPI) disclosure. The Federal Circuit held that none of Dolby’s asserted injuries established the “concrete and particularized” harm necessary to create a justiciable controversy.

    Background

    Unified Patents filed an IPR challenging claims 1, 7, and 8 of Dolby’s U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577. Dolby alleged that Unified improperly failed to disclose nine additional RPIs. The Board declined to resolve the RPI dispute, citing PTAB precedent (SharkNinja v. iRobot IPR proceeding, IPR2020-00734) and USPTO policy limiting such adjudications to when the outcome of the proceeding might be affected (e.g., due to time bar or estoppel).

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the PTAB ultimately found in favor of Dolby, upholding the challenged claims. Nonetheless, Dolby appealed, asserting that the Board’s refusal to decide the RPI issue caused it harm.

    No Standing Despite Statutory “Right to Appeal”

    Dolby first argued that it had standing based on 35 U.S.C. § 319, which provides a right of appeal to any “party dissatisfied” with a PTAB final written decision. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, reiterating its longstanding view that statutory appeal rights under the America Invents Act (AIA) do not override the constitutional requirement of Article III standing (JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive, 898 F.3d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).

    No Informational Injury Under § 312(a)(2)

    Dolby also contended that the failure to adjudicate the RPI issue violated its informational rights under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), which requires IPR petitions to identify all RPIs. The court disagreed, distinguishing this situation from the “public-disclosure” statutes found in Public Citizen v. DOJ, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) and FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Unlike the statutes at issue in those cases, the AIA does not grant a general right of public access to RPI information, nor does it create a statutory cause of action to vindicate such a right. Furthermore, Charles Gideon Korrell notes, decisions regarding institution—including compliance with § 312(a)(2)—are explicitly made non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, 958 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

    Speculative Harms Do Not Establish Injury in Fact

    The remainder of Dolby’s arguments were similarly dismissed as speculative. The court found no credible evidence that:

    • Any of the alleged RPIs were violating Dolby license agreements (Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 992 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021));
    • The administrative patent judges (APJs) had conflicts of interest;
    • Future estoppel rights would be compromised; or
    • Unified would alter its behavior if RPIs had to be disclosed.

    Without evidence of actual or imminent harm, the court held that Dolby failed to meet its burden under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016).

    Key Takeaways

    • Statutory appeal rights under the AIA do not eliminate the requirement of Article III standing.
    • The Federal Circuit continues to take a narrow view of informational injuries, especially in the context of administrative patent proceedings.
    • Speculative future harms and procedural disagreements—without more—are not enough to sustain federal appellate jurisdiction.

    Charles Gideon Korrell sees this case serving as a reminder that even victorious IPR patent owners must demonstrate a cognizable injury to pursue appeals based on procedural grievances.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.: Inherent Anticipation Requires Full Scope of the Claim

    Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.: Inherent Anticipation Requires Full Scope of the Claim

    In a decision clarifying the boundaries between claim construction and factual findings of inherency, the Federal Circuit in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 23-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), reversed the PTAB’s determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 were not anticipated by the prior art. The court concluded that the Board had improperly narrowed the scope of the claims through implicit construction and that, under the correct claim scope, the prior art reference Jorgensen inherently disclosed the disputed limitation.

    Background

    Zeiss’s patent claims an X-ray imaging system incorporating “projection magnification,” with the key limitation being that the magnification of the projection stage is “between 1 and 10 times.” Sigray petitioned for inter partes review, arguing that a 1998 paper by Jorgensen disclosed all limitations of the claims, including this magnification range.

    The Board acknowledged that Jorgensen disclosed nearly all elements of the claims but found no anticipation because it concluded that the reference did not disclose “enough” beam divergence to result in the required projection magnification. Sigray appealed, arguing that this conclusion was based on an implicit and erroneous narrowing of the claim scope.

    Implicit Claim Construction

    The Federal Circuit found that the Board had implicitly construed the phrase “between 1 and 10 times” in a way that excluded very small—indeed undetectable—levels of magnification. The Board’s repeated focus on whether Jorgensen’s beam diverged “enough” and whether it created a “meaningful” amount of magnification revealed that it was assessing not just whether any magnification was present, but whether the magnification was perceptible or functionally significant.

    As the court explained, “[t]he Board’s use of the word ‘enough’ reflects that it considered a certain level of divergence as outside the claim. Narrowing the claim scope in this way is in fact claim construction.” The court emphasized that claim construction had occurred even though the Board disclaimed doing so—relying on its precedent in Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2024), to look at the Board’s analysis and outcome rather than its labels.

    Inherent Disclosure and Physical Geometry

    After correcting the Board’s construction, the court held that Jorgensen inherently disclosed the disputed magnification limitation. Charles Gideon Korrell sees that the opinion stresses that under the geometric optics formula (M = (Ls + Ld)/Ls), any system with a diverging X-ray beam and a nonzero sample-to-detector distance (Ld > 0) necessarily results in magnification greater than 1.

    Since perfect collimation—i.e., zero divergence—is physically impossible in real-world systems, the court found that Jorgensen’s setup, which necessarily included some divergence, inherently satisfied the “between 1 and 10 times” magnification requirement. As stated in the opinion: “Here, it is undisputed that Jorgenson’s X-ray beams are not completely parallel and naturally must result in some magnification. That miniscule amount of magnification disclosed by the prior art definitionally achieves a magnification within the claimed range of 1 to 10.”

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the court relied heavily on SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in concluding that inherent anticipation does not require recognition or intention by the prior art. Rather, it is sufficient that the claimed feature necessarily results from practicing the prior art reference, regardless of whether it was appreciated at the time.

    Reversal and Remand

    • Claims 1, 3, and 4: Reversed. The court found that these claims were inherently anticipated by Jorgensen.
    • Claims 2, 5, and 6: Vacated and remanded. Sigray had argued these claims were obvious, not anticipated, so the Board must evaluate obviousness in light of the Federal Circuit’s clarified claim scope.

    Takeaway

    Charles Gideon Korrell thinks that this decision illustrates the Federal Circuit’s firm stance on the plain meaning of claim terms. The phrase “between 1 and 10 times” includes any magnification over 1, no matter how small, and the Board erred by requiring a “meaningful” or “detectable” amount. The ruling reinforces the principle from SmithKline that inherent disclosure encompasses all inevitable consequences of prior art, even if imperceptible.

    It also underscores how implicit claim construction—especially when it narrows the scope based on technical judgments about magnitude or significance—can fundamentally alter the outcome of IPR proceedings. Courts and the PTAB alike must be careful not to impose unstated thresholds that conflict with the express language of the claims.

    Finally, Charles Gideon Korrell believes that the opinion serves as a reminder that physical realities of system design (such as the impossibility of true parallel beams) can be decisive in proving inherent anticipation. The court’s analysis—rooted in the inevitability of divergence and magnification in Jorgensen’s geometry—shows that anticipation can rest not only on what’s disclosed, but also on what must unavoidably occur.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute: Federal Circuit Faults PTAB for Conflating Conception and Reduction to Practice Standards in CRISPR Interference

    Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute: Federal Circuit Faults PTAB for Conflating Conception and Reduction to Practice Standards in CRISPR Interference

    In a closely watched battle over the origins of one of the most transformative technologies in modern biology, the Federal Circuit has partially reversed a PTAB ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 22-1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025). The dispute centers on who first invented the use of CRISPR-Cas9 systems with single-guide RNA (sgRNA) to edit DNA in eukaryotic cells—a breakthrough that has revolutionized gene editing and spurred enormous commercial and scientific interest.

    The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s finding that the Broad Institute had priority over the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, the “Regents”), holding that the Board applied the wrong legal standard for conception. While affirming the PTAB’s determination that the Regents’ provisional applications lacked adequate written description, the Court remanded for further proceedings on conception.

    Background: A Decade-Long Dispute Over CRISPR Dominance

    This interference proceeding is the latest chapter in a long and contentious legal saga between two groups of academic researchers. The Regents’ team, scientists, directed by Emmanuelle Charpentier, Jennifer Doudna, and Martin Jinek, published a seminal 2012 paper demonstrating that a CRISPR-Cas9 system could be programmed using a chimeric sgRNA to cut DNA in a test tube. The Broad team, led by Feng Zhang at MIT and the Broad Institute, was the first to obtain patents for using CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, including human cells, after submitting expedited applications to the USPTO.

    The potential commercial implications of these patents are immense. CRISPR technologies are foundational in developing gene therapies, agricultural tools, and synthetic biology applications. The 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Doudna and Charpentier for their discovery, but the patent rights remained under dispute. This case, involving Interference No. 106,115, marks the second interference declared between the parties and focuses specifically on claims involving the use of a single-guide CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells.

    Federal Circuit: PTAB Misapplied the Legal Standard for Conception

    The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB improperly required the Regents’ scientists to know their invention would work in eukaryotic cells in order to establish conception. This, the Court held, conflated the distinct legal standards for conception and reduction to practice.

    Citing Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the panel emphasized that an inventor need only have a “definite and permanent idea” of the complete invention. Certainty of success or experimental proof is not required at the conception stage.

    The Court also held that:

    • The PTAB placed undue weight on contemporaneous expressions of doubt by the Regents’ scientists, without analyzing whether these doubts led to substantive changes in their design;
    • The Board erred by failing to consider whether others—using the Regents’ published design and routine methods—were able to achieve successful editing in eukaryotic cells, which would support the argument that the invention required only ordinary skill to reduce to practice;
    • The PTAB wrongly disregarded the use of “routine techniques” in the field as a key factor in assessing whether conception had been achieved.

    The Court remanded the case for further findings under the proper legal framework, which will allow the Regents to reargue their priority claim based on their early 2012 planning and public disclosures.

    Written Description: Affirmed Due to Unpredictability in the Field

    The Court affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the Regents’ first (P1) and second (P2) provisional applications lacked adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims at issue involved an sgRNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 system functioning in a eukaryotic cell.

    Given the acknowledged unpredictability in adapting prokaryotic systems to eukaryotes, the Court agreed with the PTAB that the P1 application did not sufficiently convey possession of an operative embodiment. The Board reasonably found that the application lacked specific instructions or empirical evidence demonstrating success or feasibility, particularly in light of the complexity of the technology.

    Although the Court reaffirmed that a working example is not required, it found the Regents’ disclosure wanting because it failed to bridge the gap between concept and implementation in eukaryotic systems.

    Broad’s Cross-Appeal: Dismissed as Moot

    Broad’s cross-appeal challenged the PTAB’s construction of “guide RNA” as being limited to a single-molecule configuration. However, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the Board had denied Broad’s related motions on independent procedural grounds that Broad did not challenge on appeal. Thus, even if the claim construction were reversed, it would not alter the outcome of those rulings.

    Takeaways

    This decision breathes new life into the Regents’ claims of priority in the eukaryotic CRISPR space and signals the Federal Circuit’s continued insistence on correctly distinguishing between conception and reduction to practice. Some key takeaways:

    • The Court reaffirmed that certainty of success is not required for conception. Inventors need only have a definite and permanent idea of the invention that a person of ordinary skill can reduce to practice.
    • In unpredictable arts like biotechnology, written description demands more. Disclosure must demonstrate possession, not just hypothesis, particularly when transitioning between biological systems.
    • Experimental success by third parties using routine methods is relevant to whether an invention was complete at the time of conception.
    • Procedural missteps can be fatal. Broad’s failure to adequately support its claim construction-based motions before the PTAB rendered its cross-appeal ineffectual.

    As this high-stakes dispute continues to unfold, the next round at the PTAB may prove decisive in determining who truly owns the foundational CRISPR patent rights in eukaryotic systems.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • In re Kostic: Broadened Reissue Claims Rejected Due to Statutory Bar

    In re Kostic: Broadened Reissue Claims Rejected Due to Statutory Bar

    In In re Kostic, the Federal Circuit recently reinforced the statutory bar against broadening reissue applications filed beyond the two-year limit, emphasizing that claims must be construed based on their actual language rather than an inventor’s subjective intent.

    Background:
    Appellants Kostic and Vandevelde sought reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, covering methods for buying and selling click-through internet traffic via an intermediary website. Original dependent claim 3 allowed a direct traffic exchange without a trial process but explicitly depended on independent claim 1, which required a trial process. Arguing that original claim 3 was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for inconsistency, appellants attempted to rewrite it in independent form, providing optional pathways either with or without a trial process.

    Federal Circuit Decision:
    The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s rejection, holding the reissue claim was impermissibly broader than the original. The Court applied the principle established in Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp. that any claim containing at least one conceivable process not infringing the original claims is broader in scope.

    Key Points of Law:

    • Claim Construction: The Court clarified that the determination of claim scope for broadening reissues under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) depends strictly on the claims as originally written, rather than on the patentees’ intended scope or subjective understanding. Citing Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc. and Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., the Court underscored the importance of objective claim interpretation.
    • Broadened Scope Analysis: Reissue claim 3 introduced optional pathways (with or without a trial process), whereas original claims mandated a trial process. Thus, the reissue claim was broader, capturing methods that would not infringe original claims. Since this broadened claim was sought beyond the two-year statutory limit, it violated 35 U.S.C. § 251(d).

    Implications:
    This decision reiterates the importance of careful drafting and review during patent prosecution. Inventors and practitioners must ensure that dependent claims clearly align with independent claims and avoid ambiguous constructions. Once the two-year period for broadening reissues passes, any attempts to retroactively broaden claims are statutorily barred, emphasizing the critical nature of claim precision at the outset.

    Conclusion:
    In re Kostic serves as a reminder of the rigorous statutory limitations surrounding reissue applications. Patent holders must rely on the explicit language of their claims rather than intentions or interpretations developed post-issuance. Clarity in original claim drafting remains paramount.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell