Google Wins Round Against Intellectual Ventures in Touch-Screen Patent Fight
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to affirm a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that sided with IV.
July 10, 2017 at 07:09 PM
8 minute read
Google has won a round against Intellectual Ventures at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has been chided again for not explaining its reasoning.
A Federal Circuit panel led by Judge Kara Stoll ordered the PTAB to reconsider the validity of 11 patent claims on touch-screen technology that Google had challenged as anticipated or obvious.
“Our precedent demands more than what the board's opinion provided here,” Stoll wrote in Google v. Intellectual Ventures, noting that this has been a recurring problem with some PTAB decisions. “We cannot affirm findings that lack an adequate rationale.”
It does not appear that the PTAB was ignoring the earlier Federal Circuit rulings. The board issued its final written decision in the Google-IV case in November 2015, before the recent string of Federal Circuit decisions.
That decision by PTAB Judge Patrick Scanlon said the board did “not agree” with Google that a prior patent “expressly discloses using logical operators” as the challenged IV patent, No. 6,121,960, describes.
But, Stoll wrote, the board did not address a Google expert's testimony that the older patent and other prior art described logical operations, even though they didn't use those specific words. The expert cited textbooks and IEEE dictionary definitions as references, among other things. Instead of addressing them, “the board merely stated that it considered 'all evidence and arguments' and '[agreed] with [IV],'” Stoll wrote.
The board's claim to have considered all the evidence also didn't square with its statement that it did not rely on an IV exhibit that Google had sought to exclude from the record.
“In a close factual dispute where reasonable minds may differ in their findings based on opposing evidence, the board must provide rationale for its findings to facilitate our review,” Stoll wrote.
Judges Alan Lourie and Evan Wallach concurred. The ruling hands a win to King & Spalding partner Daryl Joseffer, who argued the appeal for Google. Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear partner Brenton Babcock argued for Intellectual Ventures.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
How We Won: BraunHagey’s $56M Trademark Win Over Molson Coors Upheld by 9th Circuit
8 minute readAnthropic Agrees to 'Guardrails' for Its AI Training to Protect Copyrighted Lyrics Pending Fight Over Fair Use
5 minute readCounterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Delaware Courts to Address in 2025
- 2Adapting to AI and the Needs of Lawyers Will Be Key For Shutts & Bowen, Says Incoming Ft. Lauderdale Leader
- 3What Qualities Will Distinguish Good from Great Service In 2025?
- 4The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
- 5Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250