No Notice, No Decision

Troutman Pepper
Contact

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Appeal No. 2019-1262 (Fed. Cir., April 9, 2020)

The PTAB has never shown an affinity for permitting amendments in IPRs. This appeal marks the second time that a proposed amendment in an IPR was before the Federal Circuit for review.

In IPR2013-00067, Nike sought to have proposed claims 47-50 substitute for claims 1-46 in U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011, which relates to footwear having textile uppers made by certain knitting processes. The PTAB reviewed the proposed claims and cited the Spencer reference, which was of record but not relied upon by either party. The PTAB used the Spencer reference to determine that proposed claim 49 was not patentable.

Nike appealed on the ground that it never had notice that the PTAB would rely on the Spencer reference. The Federal Circuit agreed with Nike and vacated the PTAB judgment against claim 49. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTAB may sua sponte identify patentability issues, but must give the parties notice and an opportunity to respond before rendering a decision in order to satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Troutman Pepper | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Troutman Pepper
Contact
more
less

Troutman Pepper on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide