Case: 18-1400 Document: 97 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ FACEBOOK, INC., Appellant v. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC, Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2018-1400, 2018-1401, 2018-1402, 2018-1403, 2018-1537, 2018-1540, 2018-1541 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016- 01156, IPR2016-01157, IPR2016-01158, IPR2016-01159, IPR2017-00659, IPR2017-00709. ______________________ Decided: March 18, 2020 ______________________ HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW CARTER MACE, LOWELL D. MEAD, MARK R. WEINSTEIN. Also argued by PHILLIP EDWARD MORTON, Washington, DC. VINCENT J. RUBINO, III, Brown Rudnick, LLP, New York, NY, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, ENRIQUE WILLIAM ITURRALDE, PETER LAMBRIANAKOS. Case: 18-1400 Document: 97 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2020 2 FACEBOOK, INC. v. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC JEREMY COOPER DOERRE, Tillman Wright PLLC, Char- lotte, NC, as amicus curiae, pro se. JEFFREY ERIC SANDBERG, Appellate Staff, Civil Divi- sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae United States. Also represented by SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, MOLLY R. SILFEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. DAVID E. BOUNDY, Cambridge Technology Law LLC, Newton, MA, as amicus curiae, pro se. ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge PROST, in which PLAGER and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, join. Additional views filed by Chief Judge PROST and Circuit Judges PLAGER and O’MALLEY. PROST, Chief Judge. Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) filed a complaint accusing Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) of infring- ing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,458,245 (“the ’245 patent”); 8,694,657 (“the ’657 patent”); 8,473,552 (“the ’552 patent”); and 8,407,356 (“the ’356 patent”). In June 2016, exactly one year after being served with Windy City’s complaint, Facebook timely petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of several claims of each patent. At that time, Windy City had not yet identified the specific claims it was asserting in the district court proceeding. The Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“Board”) instituted IPR of each patent. In Jan- uary 2017, after Windy City had identified the claims it was asserting in the district court litigation, Facebook filed two additional petitions for IPR of additional claims of the Case: 18-1400 Document: 97 Page: 3 Filed: 03/18/2020 FACEBOOK, INC. v. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC 3 ’245 and ’657 patents, along with motions for joinder to the already instituted IPRs on those patents. By the time of that filing, the one-year time bar of § 315(b) had passed. The Board nonetheless instituted Facebook’s two new IPRs, and granted Facebook’s motions for joinder. In the final written decisions, the Board delivered a mixed result, holding that Facebook had shown by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that some of the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious but had failed to show that others were unpatentable as obvious. Importantly, many of the claims the Board found ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals