`
`No.
`________________________________________________________________
`________________________________________________________________
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_______________
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ET AL.
`
`_______________
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`
`APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIOARI
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY B. WALL
` Acting Solicitor General
` Counsel of Record
` Department of Justice
` Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
` SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
` (202) 514-2217
`
`________________________________________________________________
`________________________________________________________________
`
`Additional Captions and Counsel Listed in Petition
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS*
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, and 2019-1485 (Dec. 5, 2019) .....1a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Luoma v. GT Water Prods., Inc., No. 2019-2315
`(Jan. 17, 2020) .............................................3a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Pfizer Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Nos. 2019-1871,
`2019-1873, 2019-1875, 2019-1876, and 2019-2224
`(Jan. 21, 2020) .............................................5a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Stuart v. RPM Int’l, Inc., Nos. 2019-1994 and 2019-2238
`(Jan. 21, 2020) .............................................7a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Vilox Techs., LLC v. Unified Patents Inc.,
`No. 2019-2057 (Jan. 21, 2020) ...............................9a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., Nos. 2019-2231, 2019-2290,
`2019-2337, 2019-2339, and 2020-1030 (Jan. 23, 2020) ........11a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Document Sec.
`Sys., Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., No. 2019-2281
`(Jan. 23, 2020) ............................................14a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, VirnetX Inc.
`v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2019-1671 (Jan. 24, 2020) .........16a
`
`
`
`*
`Pursuant to this Court’s order of April 15, 2020,
`concerning filing procedures during the ongoing public health
`concerns related to COVID-19, this appendix is formatted under the
`standards set forth in Rule 33.2 of this Court. See 4/15/20
`Order 1 (“[E]very document filed in a case prior to a ruling on a
`petition for a writ of certiorari * * * may be formatted under
`the standards set forth in Rule 33.2.”).
`
`(I)
`
`
`
`II
`
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Concert Pharm., Inc. v. Incyte Corp., No. 2019-2011
`(Jan. 24, 2020) ............................................18a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`AgroFresh, Inc. v. UPL Ltd., No. 2019-2243
`(Jan. 24, 2020) ............................................20a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`No. 2019-1202 (Jan. 27, 2020) .............................22a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`No. 2018-1768 (Jan. 31, 2020) ..............................24a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Document Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`No. 2019-2430 (Feb. 3, 2020) ...............................26a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC,
`No. 2020-1154 (Feb. 3, 2020) ...............................28a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2020-1155
`(Feb. 3, 2020) .............................................30a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, VirnetX Inc.
`v. Iancu, Nos. 2017-2593 and 2017-2594 (Feb. 27, 2020) .....32a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Drone-Control, LLC v. SZ DJI Tech. Co., Nos. 2019-2210,
`2019-2223, 2019-2276, and 2019-2318 (Feb. 27, 2020) ........34a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`Nos. 2019-2368 and 2019-2369 (Feb. 27, 2020) ...............36a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Iron Oak
`Techs., LLC v. Unified Patents Inc., No. 2019-2388
`(Feb. 27, 2020) ............................................38a
`
`
`
`
`
`III
`
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, High 5 Games,
`LLC v. Iancu, No. 2020-1024 (Feb. 27, 2020) ................40a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Protiva
`Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Moderna Therapeutics, Inc.,
`No. 2020-1183 (Feb. 27, 2020) ..............................42a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Promptu Sys.
`Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, No. 2020-1253
`(Feb. 27, 2020) ............................................44a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Polaris
`Innovations Ltd. v. Iancu, No. 2019-1484 (Mar. 24, 2020) ...46a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Amgen Inc. v.
`Iancu, No. 2019-2171 (Mar. 24, 2020) .......................48a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Nos. 2020-1082
`and 2020-1083 (Mar. 30, 2020) ..............................50a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, North Star
`Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., Nos. 2020-1295
`and 2020-1296 (Mar. 30, 2020) ..............................53a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Polaris
`Innovations Ltd. v. Iancu, No. 2019-1483 (Apr. 9, 2020) ....56a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Next Caller,
`Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc., No. 2020-1291 (Apr. 16, 2020) .......58a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Horizon
`Pharma USA, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., No. 2020-1164
`(Apr. 17, 2020) ............................................60a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Rovi Guides,
`Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, Nos. 2019-1215, 2019-1216,
`and 2019-1218 (Apr. 22, 2020) ..............................62a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Dali Wireless
`Inc. v. Commscope Techs. LLC, No. 2020-1045
`(Apr. 29, 2020) ............................................64a
`
`
`
`
`
`IV
`
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding,
`Intex Recreation Corp. v. Bestway (USA), Inc.,
`Nos. 2020-1141, 2020-1142, 2020-1143, 2020-1149,
`2020-1150, and 2020-1151 (Apr. 29, 2020) ...................66a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Team
`Worldwide Corp. v. Intex Recreation Corp., No. 2020-1147
`(Apr. 29, 2020) ............................................68a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Gree, Inc. v.
`Supercell Oy, Nos. 2020-1069 and 2020-1162
`(May 19, 2020) .............................................70a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Koninklijke
`KPN N.V. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2019-2447
`(May 20, 2020) .............................................72a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Personalized
`Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2020-1197 and
`2020-1198 (May 21, 2020) ...................................74a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, In re JHO
`Intellectual Prop. Holdings, LLC, No. 2019-2330
`(June 18, 2020) ............................................77a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, Signature
`Sys., LLC v. American Express Co., No. 2020-1319
`(June 22, 2020) ............................................79a
`Court of appeals order vacating and remanding, In re Boloro
`Global Ltd., Nos. 2019-2349, 2019-2351, and 2019-2353
`(July 7, 2020) .............................................82a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Image Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., No. 2018-2156 (Feb. 24, 2020) .........................85a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Nos. 2019-1408 and 2019-1485 (Feb. 24, 2020) ..........87a
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech.
`Co., No. 2018-1768 (Apr. 2, 2020) ..........................89a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Vilox Techs., LLC v. Unified Patents Inc.,
`No. 2019-2057 (Apr. 7, 2020) ...............................91a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Pfizer Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`Nos. 2019-1871, 2019-1873, 2019-1875, 2019-1876, and
`2019-2224 (Apr. 8, 2020) ...................................93a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Stuart v. RPM Int’l, Inc., Nos. 2019-1994 and
`2019-2238 (Apr. 8, 2020) ...................................95a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., Nos. 2019-2231,
`2019-2290, 2019-2337, and 2020-1030 (Apr. 8, 2020) .........97a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc., No. 2019-2339
`(Apr. 8, 2020) .............................................99a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Concert Pharm. v. Incyte Corp., No. 2019-2011
`(Apr. 9, 2020) ............................................101a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, AgroFresh, Inc. v. UPL Ltd., No. 2019-2243
`(Apr. 9, 2020) ............................................103a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Document Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor
`Co., No. 2019-2281 (Apr. 9, 2020) .........................105a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`No. 2019-1202 (Apr. 14, 2020) .............................107a
`
`
`
`
`
`VI
`
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Document Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor
`Co., No. 2019-2430 (Apr. 20, 2020) ........................109a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Unified Patents,
`LLC, No. 2020-1154 (Apr. 20, 2020) ........................111a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2020-1155 (Apr. 21, 2020) .............................113a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing,
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2019-1671
`(May 13, 2020) ............................................115a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing en banc,
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2019-1671
`(May 13, 2020) ............................................122a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing, Luoma v. GT Water
`Prods., Inc., No. 2019-2315 (May 15, 2020) ................125a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing en banc,
`Luoma v. GT Water Prods., Inc., No. 2019-2315
`(May 15, 2020) ............................................127a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech.,
`Inc., Nos. 2020-1295 and 2020-1296 (June 16, 2020) ........129a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech.,
`Inc., No. 2020-1297 (June 16, 2020) .......................131a
`Court of appeals order denying rehearing and rehearing
`en banc, North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech.,
`Inc., Nos. 2020-1298 and 2020-1299 (June 16, 2020) ........133a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-2156 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2019
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Appellees
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2018-2156
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`00353.
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Cross-Appellants
`
`(1a)
`
`
`
`Case: 18-2156 Document: 68 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2019
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-1408, 2019-1485
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`01218.
`
`______________________
`
`ORDER
`______________________
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`In light of this court’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith
`
`& Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), and
`the fact that Image Processing Technologies LLC has
`raised an Appointments Clause challenge in its opening
`brief in both of the above captioned cases,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`
`(1) The oral arguments scheduled for January 6, 2020
`are cancelled and the cases are removed from the calendar.
`
`(2) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions in
`No. IPR2017-00353 and No. IPR2017-01218 are vacated
`and the cases are remanded to the Board for proceedings
`consistent with the court’s decision in Arthrex.
`
`
`
` /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`
` December 5, 2019
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
` Clerk of Court
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2315 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`EUGENE H. LUOMA,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`GT WATER PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2315
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,754.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`Eugene H. Luoma moves to vacate the decision of the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board and remand for further
`
`3a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2315 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2020
`
`
`
`proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Mr. Luoma states that
`GT Water Products, Inc. “neither consents nor objects” to
`the motion and “takes the position that the patent should
`remain invalid.” The Director of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office intervenes and opposes.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) Mr. Luoma’s motion to vacate and remand is
`granted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is
`vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceed-
`ings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
` January 17, 2020
` Date
`
`s32
`
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`4a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1871 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`PFIZER INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., SANOFI
`PASTEUR INC., SK CHEMICALS CO., LTD.,
`Appellees
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-
`02131, IPR2017-02132, IPR2017-02136, IPR2017-02138,
`and IPR2018-00187.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`
`5a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1871 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`Pfizer Inc. moves to vacate the decision of the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board and remand for further proceed-
`ings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941
`F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`Sanofi Pasteur Inc., and SK Chemicals Co. Ltd. oppose the
`motion. The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office intervenes and requests that the court
`hold any decision on the motion in abeyance pending en
`banc consideration of Arthrex.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) The motion to vacate and remand is granted. The
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated, and
`the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`January 21, 2020
` Date
`
`
` /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`s24
`
`6a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1994 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`ALAN STUART, Trustee for the Cecil G. Stuart and
`Donna M. Stuart Revocable Living Trust Agree-
`ment, CDS DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Appellants
`
`v.
`
`RPM INTERNATIONAL, INC., RUST-OLEUM
`CORPORATION,
`Cross-Appellants
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-1994, -2238
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`02158.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`
`7a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1994 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`O R D E R
`Appellants move to vacate the final written decision of
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and remand for further
`proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Cross-Appellants op-
`pose the motion and move for a stay. The Director of the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office intervenes and
`requests that the court hold any decision on the motion in
`abeyance pending en banc consideration of Arthrex.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) Appellants’ motion to vacate and remand is
`granted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is
`vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceed-
`ings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) The motion to stay is denied.
`(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
` January 21, 2020
` Date
`
`s25
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`8a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2057 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`VILOX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2057
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
`00044.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`
`9a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2057 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 01/21/2020
`
`
`
`Vilox Technologies, LLC moves unopposed to vacate
`
`the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and re-
`mand for further proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v.
`Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`intervenes and requests that the court hold any decision on
`the motion in abeyance pending en banc consideration of
`Arthrex.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) Vilox’s motion to vacate and remand is granted.
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated,
`and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` January 21, 2020
` Date
`
`
`s32
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`10a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2231 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2231, -2290, -2337, 2020-1030
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
`00200, IPR2018-00312, IPR2018-00369, and IPR2018-
`00458.
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Appellee
`
`
`11a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2231 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2020
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2339
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
`00404.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`In the above-captioned appeals, Vaporstream, Inc.
`
`moves to vacate the decisions of the Patent Trial and Ap-
`peal Board and remand for further proceedings in light of
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019). Snap, Inc. opposes the motions. The Director
`of the United States Patent and Trademark Office inter-
`venes and requests that the court hold any decision on the
`motions in abeyance pending en banc consideration of Ar-
`threx.
` Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official captions are reflected above.
`
`12a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2231 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 01/23/2020
`
`(2) The motions to vacate and remand are granted.
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions are vacated,
`and the cases are remanded to the Board for proceedings
`consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
` January 23, 2020
` Date
`
`s32
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`13a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2281 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., SEOUL
`SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., CREE, INC.,
`Appellees
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U. S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2281
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
`00333 and IPR2018-01205.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before O’MALLEY, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`
`14a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2281 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2020
`
`
`
`Document Security Systems, Inc. moves to vacate the
`decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and remand
`for further proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The appel-
`lees oppose. The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office intervenes and opposes.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director is added as intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) The motion to vacate and remand is granted. The
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated, and
`the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`January 23, 2020
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s24
`
`
`
`15a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1671 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-1671
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,679.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`VirnetX Inc. moves to vacate the decision of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board and remand
`for
`further
`
`16a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1671 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`
`
`proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Cisco Systems, Inc.
`opposes the motion. The Director of the United States Pa-
`tent and Trademark Office intervenes and opposes.
`Although this appeal arises out of an inter partes reex-
`amination and not an inter partes review as was at issue in
`Arthrex, we see no material difference in the relevant anal-
`ysis. We therefore grant VirnetX’s motion.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) VirnetX’s motion to vacate and remand is granted.
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated,
`and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` January 24, 2020
` Date
`
`s32
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`17a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2011 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`CONCERT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`INCYTE CORPORATION,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2011
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`01256.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and O’MALLEY, Circuit
`Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
`
`18a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2011 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc. moves to vacate the de-
`
`cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and remand for
`further proceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Incyte Corp.
`opposes the motion. The Director of the United States Pa-
`tent and Trademark Office intervenes and opposes.
` Upon consideration thereof,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`
`(2) The motion to vacate and remand is granted. The
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated, and
`the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
` January 24, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`s28
`
`
`19a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2243 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`AGROFRESH, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UPL LIMITED,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trade-
`mark Office,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-2243
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
`01919.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`Before NEWMAN, MOORE, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`MOORE, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
`
`20a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-2243 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 01/24/2020
`
`
`
`AgroFresh, Inc. moves to vacate the decision of the Pa-
`
`tent Trial and Appeal Board and remand for further pro-
`ceedings in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Director of the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office intervenes and re-
`quests that the court hold the motion in abeyance pending
`en banc consideration of Arthrex. UPL Limited opposes the
`motion and alternatively asks the court to hold the motion
`in abeyance pending Arthrex.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office is added as an intervenor. The revised
`official caption is reflected above.
`(2) The motion to vacate and remand is granted. The
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated, and
`the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings con-
`sistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` January 24, 2020
` Date
`
`
`s32
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`21a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1202 Document: 79 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Appellee
`
`ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2019-1202
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-
`01622.
`
`______________________
`
`ORDER
`______________________
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`In light of this court’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith
`& Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and the
`
`22a
`
`
`
`Case: 19-1202 Document: 79 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2020
`
`fact that Polaris Innovations Limited raised an Appoint-
`ments Clause challenge in its opening brief in the above
`captioned case,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The oral argument scheduled for March 2, 2020 is
`cancelled and the case is removed from the calendar.
`(2) The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in
`No. IPR2016-01622 is vacated and the case is remanded to
`the Board for proceedings consistent with the court’s deci-
`sion in Arthrex
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
