Federal Circuit backs PTAB in Dell patent clash
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) refusal to consider a new argument presented by Dell on remand.
In a precedential decision handed down yesterday, March 19, the Federal Circuit backed the board’s refusal to consider both Dell’s argument and patent holding company Acceleron’s proposed response.
A single claim of US patent number 6,948,021, which is directed to a “computer network appliance containing a number of hot-swappable components”, was at the centre of the dispute.
In early 2014, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the patent based on Dell’s petition, which relied on US patent number 6,757,748 (Hipp).
During oral argument before the board, Dell presented a new argument. Acceleron made a procedural objection that Dell’s argument was not raised in time, and that Acceleron should be permitted to present evidence to rebut the new argument.
The PTAB denied Acceleron’s objection. It then confirmed the validity of claims 14–17 and 34–36 and cancelled claims 1–4, 6–13, 18–20, and 30 as either anticipated or obvious.
Dell and Acceleron both appealed against the decision to the Federal Circuit which remanded the decision on grounds that the PTAB had failed to give Acceleron an opportunity to respond.
On remand, the PTAB declined to consider both Dell’s new argument and Acceleron’s proposed response, so Dell appealed against the decision.
The technology company claimed that the board was required, under the remand order and the Federal Circuit’s precedent, to consider Dell’s new argument and Acceleron’s response.
On the Federal Circuit’s decision (when it remanded the case), the court said: “This does not mean, however, that we ordered the board to consider Dell’s new argument and Acceleron’s response. Rather, the court set out the requisite procedures that would apply had the board actually considered Dell’s new evidence.”
Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna, on behalf of the court, concluded that the PTAB didn’t abuse its discretion by not considering the new argument on remand and the decision was affirmed.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories
UK agrees protection of IP rights post-Brexit transition
US businesses urge Trump to rethink China IP tariffs
