PTAB Upholds Validity of Claim over Prior Art Despite A District Court Finding the Claim Invalid as Indefinite

Apr 14, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In reaching its final decision on validity, the PTAB first reconsidered two of its previous claim constructions. The PTAB had initially determined, pre-Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), that the claim limitations “proficiency sensing module” and “mode control module” were not means-plus-function limitations because of the strong presumption that claim limitations that do not use the phrase “means for” are not subject to 35 U.S.C § 112 ¶ 6. The Williamson decision, however, abrogated this presumption and, instead, directed courts to determine “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” If the words of the claim do not connote structure, then 35 U.S.C § 112 ¶ 6 applies. Following the Williamson decision and additional briefing from the parties, the PTAB found that neither of the disputed limitations, or the remainder of the claim, connoted structure for the modules to a person or ordinary skill, despite the claim reciting inputs and outputs to each module at a “very high level.” Thus, the PTAB reversed its previous decision, ruling that the limitations were means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C § 112 ¶ 6.

The PTAB then found that the prior art did not anticipate the challenged claim, because petitioner had not identified any structure in the specification of the patent that corresponded to the two module limitations and, “as a result,” could not identify similar anticipatory structure in the asserted prior art references. The PTAB reached this finding despite knowing that a district court had found the claim indefinite, because the specification failed to disclose sufficient structural support for one of the module limitations, which suggests that petitioner had not pointed to any corresponding structure in the specification because such structure did not exist.

This case highlights the restrictions on the scope of inter partes review, which does not allow petitioners to argue for, or the PTAB to consider, invalidity based on indefiniteness.

Ubisoft, Inc., v. Guitar Apprentice, Inc., IPR 2015-00298, Paper 25 (PTAB April 1, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.