Vacated Vacatur Terminates Termination

Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. BRENT

Before Prost, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Summary: Affirming the Board’s decision not to terminate case remanded under Arthrex I and upholding the Board’s claim construction.

Polaris Innovations Limited (“Polaris”) appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of unpatentability regarding two petitions brought by NVIDIA Corporation.  However, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in view of its decision in Arthrex I.  On remand, Polaris and NVIDIA jointly moved for termination. While the motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided Arthrex II, vacating the Federal Circuit’s vacatur. In view of this, the Board denied the motion to terminate. With the Board’s initial determinations of unpatentability now before the Federal Circuit again, Polaris added an appeal of the denied motion to terminate.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions. Reviewing the Board’s decision not to terminate de novo, the Federal Circuit found because the Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex II vacated the Federal Circuit’s vacatur, the Board had reached a final decision. Termination was, therefore, not required under Section 317 of Title 35. Moreover, Section 317(a) only requires termination with respect to the petitioner (NVIDIA). The Federal Circuit noted even if there was no final decision, the Board would have been within its discretion to proceed to a final written decision without a petitioner.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the PTABs construction of terms from each of the two patents at issue. Reviewing claim construction de novo and underlying facts for substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit agreed “memory chips” can encompass both packaged and unpackaged dies. Likewise, the Federal Circuit agreed the broadest reasonable interpretation of “resource tag buffer” was “single buffer.” Finally, reviewing the Board’s findings regarding scope and content of the prior art for substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit found the Board’s conclusion that the prior art disclosed a “single buffer” adequately supported.

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.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens
Contact
more
less

Knobbe Martens 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

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.