Author: Jeff T. Watson
Editor: Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, Nos. 15-1346, 15-1347 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s validity determination for a claim because the Board adopted a new claim construction in its final written decision after interpreting the claim differently before. The Court also rejected SAS’s argument that the Board must address all claims challenged in an IPR petition in its final written decision. In her dissent, Judge Newman stated that the Board’s failure to address non-instituted claims in the final written decision undermines the goals of the AIA. A more detailed discussion of the Federal Circuit’s decision can be found on Finnegan’s AIA blog.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.