{"id":2359,"date":"2019-01-09T23:15:43","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T04:15:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2359"},"modified":"2019-01-26T23:29:44","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T04:29:44","slug":"ptab-reconsideration-did-not-violate-due-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2359","title":{"rendered":"PTAB Reconsideration Did Not Violate Due Process"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/18-1433.Opinion.1-9-2019.pdf\">AC Technologies S.A., v. Amazon.com, Inc<\/a>., [2018-1433] (January 9, 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Final Written Decision of the PTAB ruling certain claims of AC Technologies S.A.\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680 unpatentable. AC complained that the Board, on reconsideration, invalidated claims based on a ground of unpatentability raised in their petition but not addressed in the original Final\nWritten Decision, arguing that the Board exceeded its authority and deprived it\nof fair process by belatedly considering this ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that precedent mandated that the Board consider all grounds of unpatentability raised in an instituted petition. The Board complied with due process, and AC did not persuade it that the Board erred in either its claim construction or its ultimate conclusions of unpatentability.\u00a0 The Petition contained three grounds, Ground 1 alleged unpatentability giving the claims, and in particular, the term \u201ccomputer unit\u201d a narrow construction.\u00a0 Grounds 2 and 3 asserted unpatentability over the same reference, giving \u201ccomputer unit\u201d a broader construction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Board invalidated claims based upon Grounds 1 and 2, but\nnot three.&nbsp; When the inconsistency was\npointed out on request for rehearing, the Board address Ground 3.&nbsp; The Federal\nCircuit said that no due process violation occurred here. As AC admits, after\nthe Board decided to accept Amazon\u2019s rehearing request and consider Ground 3,\nit permitted AC to\n\ntake discovery and submit additional briefing and\nevidence on that ground. The Federal Circuit noted that alhough AC did not\nreceive a hearing specific to Ground 3, it never requested one. Had AC desired\na hearing, it should have made a request before the Board.\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In AC Technologies S.A., v. Amazon.com, Inc., [2018-1433] (January 9, 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Final Written Decision of the PTAB ruling certain claims of AC Technologies S.A.\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680 unpatentable. AC complained that the Board, on &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2359\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ipr"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2359","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2359"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2359\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2360,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2359\/revisions\/2360"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}