Precedential Patent Case Decision – AVX Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc.

patent caseThis is decision on appeal from PTAB case IPR2016-00636. The PTAB held that AVX had failed to establish unpatentability of some claims (“upheld claims”). AVX appealed. The Federal Circuit concluded that AVX lacked standing, and dismissed.

Legal issue: 35 USC 315(e), statutory estoppel, applicability to a party lacking standing to appeal from a PTAB decision.

The Federal Circuit’s review of the facts pertaining to lack of standing covers no newground. However, the Federal Circuit addressed, AVX’s second argument for standing as a result of the harm caused by IPR estoppel, noting that it was not yet decided whether 315(e) estoppel applied to a party lacking standing to appeal an adverse PTAB decision.

Second, this court has not decided whether the estoppel provision would have the effect that AVX posits—specifically, whether § 315(e) would have estoppel effect even where the IPR petitioner lacked Article III standing to appeal the Board’s decision to this court. For this court to so hold, we would have to consider whether that reading of § 315(e) is tied to § 319’s right of appeal for any “party dissatisfied with the final written decision” of the Board. [AVX Corporation v. PresidioComponents, Inc., 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. 5/13/2019).]

Relatedly, we would also have to consider whether § 315(e) should be read to incorporate a traditional preclusion principle—that neither claim nor issue preclusion applieswhen appellate review of the decision with a potentially preclusive effect is unavailable. See Penda Corp. v. United States, 44 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(“It is axiomatic that a judgment is without preclusive effect against a party which lacks a right to appeal that judgment.”); see Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547U.S. 633, 647 (2006); SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373,1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We have not addressed those and other considerations bearing on the proper application of § 315(e). [AVX Corporation v. PresidioComponents, Inc., 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. 5/13/2019).]

We decline to do so here. The parties have not briefed the issue; indeed,we have no adversarial presentations on the issue, because AVX assumes estoppel as a predicate for its standing argument and Presidio has evidently decided not to give up a possible future estoppel argument. If, in the future, a live controversy over the upheld claims arises between Presidio and AVX, and if either an infringement action or declaratory judgment action involving those claims is filed in district court, AVX can, in such an action, test whether § 315(e) bars it fromraising the obviousness challenges that the Board reviewed and rejected. At that point, the parties presumably would be adverse on the issue. [AVX Corporation v.Presidio Components, Inc., 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. 5/13/2019).]

Author: Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC
5400 Shawnee Road, Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22312-2300 USA

    • August 2019
      Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
      « Jul    
       1234
      567891011
      12131415161718
      19202122232425
      262728293031  
  • IP4all Weekly Bulletin

    You can subscribe to the weekly IP4ALL Bulletin.

  • Recommended videoView all | 

    The new EU trade mark Regulation enters into force on March 23rd. As a result, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) will change its name to the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

    The amending Regulation also revises the fees payable to the Office, including an overall reduction in their amounts, particularly in the case of trade mark renewal fees. On 23.3. 2016, the Office’s online application forms and fee calculator will be automatically updated to reflect the new system.
    From its base in Alicante, Spain, OHIM has processed more than 1.3 million Community trade mark applications in 23 EU languages, from nearly every country and region in the world, since 1996.

    The Amending Regulation was published on 24 December 2015 and is part of the EU trade mark reform legislative package that also includes the replacement of the existing EU Trade Mark Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council).

    OHIM is the EU’s largest decentralised agency. It is entirely self-financed, receiving no funding from the EU Budget. As well as managing the Community trade mark and the registered Community design (RCD), it works in collaboration with the EU national and regional IP offices to build a stronger IP system across the EU for the benefit of users.

  • IP Consulting Ltd. - Intellectual Property Consulting Agency
  • Landmark-TP
  • Ivan Georgiev - Rembrand
  • Global IP Attorneys - The world's leading address guide for patent,  trademark, copyright, intellectual property and IP attorneys. In just a few steps you can find your agency for registration and protection of your intellectual property, patent, design, copyright or trademark.
  • The Professional Sector Network is a referral and networking group that caters exclusively to leading firms with a history of excellence in the business, advisory and investment sectors.
  • IP Basis®

  • IP Guide®

  • Become our partners