Published 07/20/2020 by CIONCA IP Team
On July 8th 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) made a decision in Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc. Valencell Inc. (“Valencell”) is the owner of U.S Patent No. 8,923,941 (“the ‘941 patent”) titled “Methods and Apparatus for Generating Data Output Containing Physiological and Motion-Related Information”.
The ‘941 patent “concerns systems for obtaining and monitoring information such as blood oxygen levels, heart rate, and physical activity.” Previously, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-13 of the ‘941 patent with the U.S Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which was granted in part, instituting a review of Claims 1, 2, and 6-13. Fitbit Inc. (“Fitbit”) then filed their own IPR petition for Claims 1, 2, and 6-13. This action prompted Fitbit to move for a joinder with Apple’s IPR. The Board granted Fitbit’s petition as well as granting the motion for the joinder. After the Board’s decision, before the Final Written Decision, there was a Supreme Court decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S Ct. 1348 (2018), which concluded that the America Invents Act required that all patent claims challenged in a IPR petition must be reviewed by the Board if the petition is granted. This Supreme Court decision was a deciding factor on the Board’s reinstitution of the Apple/Fitbit IPR to add Claims 3-5 of the ‘941 patent.
The Board conducted further proceedings as to Claims 3–5 and issued a Final Written Decision that held Claims 1, 2, and 6–13 unpatentable, and held Claims 3–5 not unpatentable. Following the decision, Apple withdrew from the proceeding. Fitbit appealed the Board’s decision on Claims 3–5. The Federal Circuit had jurisdiction.
To begin, the validity of the joinder appeal was questioned. Valencell argued that Fitbit had no room to appeal because the IPR joinder with Apple did not request Claims 3-5. Valencell also stated that Fitbit did not change their petition after the court ruling, and Fitbit did not submit separate brief for Claims 3-5. Fitbit countered by agreeing that they did not change their petition, but Valencell did not object to the new petition. Fitbit also defended their petition by citing that due to the single IPR with Apple, Fitbit did not need to submit a brief about Claims 3-5. The Federal Circuit agreed with Fitbit, and that the situation and circumstances do not override Fitbit’s statutory right of appeal. Valencell countered by stating that the petition came over a year after Valencell filed their suit, therefore claiming Fitbit was outside of the conformity of statute. The Federal Circuit concluded that Fitbit’s rights as a joined party applies to the entirety of the proceeding and includes the right of appeal.
Second, we review the appeal for Claims 3-5. In this appeal, Fitbit argues “‘API’ is recognized in this field as an acronym for ‘application programming interface’—as experts for both sides agreed. Fitbit argues that the well-known meaning of ‘API’ and its consistent usage accompanying ‘application-specific interface’ in the ’941 patent demonstrate the patentee’s intended broadermeaning of ‘application programming interface” (6). Valencell disagreed, stating that Claim 3 is narrower and more precise, and therefore, not unpatentable. “The Board concluded that regarding Claim 3, the Claim is narrower as stated, and the claim construction is correct. The Board cites their reasoning as ‘application-specific interface (API)’ is directed to a ‘particular application,’ rather than broadly to different applications” (9). The Federal Circuit sustains the Board’s decision on claim construction but notes that the Board did not review the patentability of Claim 3 on grounds of obviousness. Due to this oversee, Fitbit criticized the Board for holding Claim 3 as not unpatentable but neglecting to view Claim 3 on grounds of obviousness before the Final Written Decision. The Federal Circuit “affirm[s] the Board’s claim construction, vacate[s] the Board’s decision that claim 3 is not unpatentable, and remand[s] for determination of patentability in light of the cited references” (11).
The IPR petition also challenged the validity of Claims 4-5 on grounds of obviousness. “The Board held Claims 4 and 5 not unpatentable in its Final Written Decision, on the ground that the Board could not determine the meaning of the Claims because the term ‘the application’ lacked antecedent basis” (10). The Board did not cite prior art references due to it being “speculative” (12). The Board initially ruled that Fitbit did not prove obviousness for Claims 4-5, therefore deeming them not unpatentable. Herein lies an error that both Fitbit and Valencell acknowledge. The error exists due to the Claims being renumbered after the removal of Claim 2 from Valencell’s patent. “Fitbit summarizes; ‘As originally drafted, claim 5 (which is now claim 4) recited that it depended from claim 4 (which is now claim 3). Appx262–263 (original claim listing). As explain[ed] . . . Valencell inadvertently changed claim 4’s dependency to ‘claim 1’ when it amended other Claims of the patent application” (13). The Federal Circuit “concluded that the Agency’s treatment of this error as the basis of a Final Written Decision of patentability is not a reasonable resolution and does not comport with the Agency’s assignment to resolve patentability issues. The Board’s Final Witten Decision on the ground of ‘absence of antecedent’ basis is vacated. On remand the Board shall determine patentability of corrected Claims 4 and 5 on the asserted grounds of obviousness” (14).
The Federal Circuit settled that Fitbit as a joinder had the right to appeal the Board’s decision on Claims 3-5. The Federal Circuit concludes that the Board erred in its ruling of Claims 3-5. The Federal Circuit vacates the decision that Claims 3-5 are not unpatentable and remand for determination of the merits of patentability on the grounds of evidence presented in the petition.
This decision determines that a joint party does have the right to appeal the Board’s decision, regardless of the joint party’s IPR petition. Furthermore, the accuracy of each claim as presented is crucial in determining the patentability of an invention.
Full Fitbit Inc. v Valencell Inc. decision can be read here: www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1048.OPINION.7-8-2020_1615429.pdf
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed throughout this blog are the views and opinions of the individual author(s) and/or contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of our firm, CIONCA IP Law. P.C.
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/5/2021 5:38:23 PM
Blockchain and the Expanding US Patent Landscape
CIONCA IP TEAM (MC)3/24/2021 2:19:11 PM
Invention and Art Analogy
CIONCA IP TEAM (BR)1/19/2021 4:57:54 PM
QuikTrip West, Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc.
CIONCA IP TEAM (AP)12/7/2020 4:06:28 PM
St Jude Medical LLC v Snyders Heart Valve LLC
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/1/2020 5:07:58 PM
Allen v. Cooper, Governor of North Carolina
CIONCA IP TEAM (JM)10/8/2020 2:57:24 PM
Royal Crown Company Inc., Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Inc., v The Coca-Cola Company
CIONCA IP TEAM (SG)10/6/2020 2:42:35 PM
Apple, Inc., v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.: Sanction Orders and Obviousness
CIONCA IP Team (SE)9/16/2020 4:21:45 PM
CIONCA IP Launches New Online Patent Website
CIONCA IP Team9/15/2020 5:11:49 PM
Comparing Apples to Apples: TTAB on In re Horizon Group USA, Inc.
CIONCA IP Team9/3/2020 4:30:41 PM
D2 Holdings v. House of Cards
CIONCA IP Team8/31/2020 12:09:17 PM
Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness
CIONCA IP Team8/11/2020 11:56:24 AM
Adidas AG v. Nike INC.
CIONCA IP Team7/20/2020 7:40:21 PM
Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc.: Joint Parties in IPR Proceeding
CIONCA IP Team7/14/2020 7:51:31 PM
CIONCA IP Launches New Online Trademark Website
CIONCA IP 5/19/2020 7:36:30 PM
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.: “Obvious to Try” Rationale
Marin Cionca4/15/2020 4:41:43 PM
The Day After COVID-19 Pandemic – Hope or Fear?
CIONCA IP4/13/2020 9:33:36 PM
Two of a Kind: TTAB on Shannon DeVivo v. Celeste Ortiz
CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM
GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct
CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.
Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM
Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question
CIONCA IP 1/15/2020 4:47:19 PM
FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC: Presumption of Nexus
CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM
The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
CIONCA IP 12/31/2019 4:29:41 PM
The Chamberlain Group, INC. v. One World Technologies, INC.
Marin Cionca12/9/2019 8:07:20 PM
A “glove” approach to patent claim construction
11/15/2019 8:15:11 PM
Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.: Objective Indicia and Copying
CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM
To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment
CIONCA IP10/7/2019 5:44:50 PM
A Decision in Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC
Marin Cionca9/27/2019 9:32:48 PM
Can an Online Patent Attorney File My Patent?
CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM
Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries
CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM
In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction
CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM
Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation
CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM
In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications
CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM
Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.
Marin Cionca6/11/2019 8:43:17 PM
Can I Successfully License My Invention?
CIONCA Team Member5/20/2019 8:25:57 PM
PTAB Designates Cases as Precedential
CIONCA Team Member5/7/2019 7:13:41 PM
The Federal Circuit Defines a Technological Invention
Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM
What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?
CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential
CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM
Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Marin Cionca3/1/2019 9:36:50 PM
USPTO Director Andrei Iancu Visits Orange County!
CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM
Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims
CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM
TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC
Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM
Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent
CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM
In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement
CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM
Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname
Marin Cionca12/8/2018 8:35:06 PM
IP Assets - Procurement, Enforcement, Monetization
CIONCA Team Member11/19/2018 1:07:51 PM
The Appeals Process
CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM
A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term
Marin Cionca10/1/2018 7:42:12 PM
Can I Register a Color as a Trademark or Service Mark?
CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM
Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM
Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout
Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM
Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit
Marin Cionca7/31/2018 6:50:05 PM
My patent expired? Can I still sue for patent infringement?
7/3/2018 7:44:33 PM
Impax Laboratories Inc. v Lannett Holdings Inc. on Claim Invalidation
CIONCA IP5/17/2018 9:54:58 PM
Marin Cionca Presents at OCIPLA May 2018 Luncheon
5/4/2018 7:37:51 PM
The Hague System for Protection of International Designs
CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM
USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.
CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM
It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision
3/20/2018 12:50:05 PM
Andrei Iancu - New Director of the USPTO
3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM
Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance
CIONCA Team2/16/2018 4:07:48 PM
Fashion and Intellectual Property
CIONCA Team1/17/2018 8:12:06 PM
A Fork in the Road: Production or Protection?
1/2/2018 7:47:09 PM
The Lanham Act: Disparagement Provision Violates the First Amendment
12/26/2017 6:04:25 PM
CIONCA Sets Foot in San Francisco
12/1/2017 8:01:27 PM
An Introduction to Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications
11/17/2017 1:24:20 PM
An Introduction to Patent Searches
11/10/2017 6:47:44 PM
An Introduction to Design Patent Applications
Staff11/3/2017 4:20:04 PM
An Introduction to Provisional Patent Applications
Staff9/28/2017 7:27:22 PM
staff9/27/2017 5:12:07 PM
CIONCA - Patent and Trademark Law Attorney
staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM
Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience
staff9/15/2017 9:33:30 PM
CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM
CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued
CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM
Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable
CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM
Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution
CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM
Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement
Marin Cionca4/25/2017 9:48:49 PM
Monetization of Patents: How to Make Money with Patents
Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM
Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable
Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM
Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents
Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM
Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter
Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential
Marin Cionca5/17/2016 8:57:23 PM
Patent Claims Rejection Based on Inherency
Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM
Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction
I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.
Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM
In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable
M. Cionca and I. Kim2/4/2016 5:55:16 PM
Software Inventions Are Still Patentable!
Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential
Marin1/28/2016 9:10:56 PM
How Unpredictability Can Affect Obviousness Challenges
Marin11/19/2015 2:13:05 PM
An Innovator’s Dilemma: Design or Utility Patent?
Marin11/18/2015 7:31:35 PM
When Is a Thesis Prior Art?
Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM
Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry
Marin11/18/2015 6:11:11 PM
PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Marin Cionca, Esq.
Registered Patent Attorney
USPTO Reg. No. 63899
About CIONCA® IP Law firm: We are an Orange County, CA based boutique intellectual property firm with a focus on patent and trademark application, prosecution, opinion, licensing and IP enforcement services, offering its IP services primarily at flat fee rates. We serve local OC clients, as well as clients throughout US and international clients.
We’d love to hear from you…we just need a little info
about your plans to take over the world!
P.S…Feel free to call us! (800)985-9198
Thank you for your message. We will respond within 24-72 hours. Thank you.