“While they may choose not to give reasons, they have undoubtedly received notice that the PQA’s party status has been reinstated and are facing possible sanctions, and the PQA will continue to decline to participate by continuing its non-participation.” The possibility of sanctions cannot be circumvented.” – Vidal Order, Article 108
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Monday a motion to dismiss Patent Quality Assurance (PQA)’s Jan. 24 petition, asking the CAFC to be reinstated as a party to a high-profile inter partes review. . (IPR) Legal proceedings against VLSI Technology.
In December 2022, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal announced that PQA had filed an IPR and threatened VLSI to participate in another IPR to receive payments from technology companies. It was ruled that the process was abused. She also found that PQA misrepresented its “exclusive involvement” with a witness, Dr. Adit Singh, who was involved in another of her IPR petitions against VLSI brought by OpenSky. She added sanctions by excluding her PQA from the proceedings, stating, “While her behavior here may not be as bad as OpenSky… I still think PQA’s behavior amounts to process abuse.” ‘ said.
However, on January 27, Vidal reinstated PQA as a petitioner to the IPR. The PQA argued that it should have been given an opportunity to give reasons and explain why the sanctions should not have been imposed. Vidal granted PQA’s motion to the extent permitted to briefly explain its request for reconsideration on the merits and show why sanctions should not be limited to ten pages within seven days; PQA joined the CAFC in choosing to file a petition for the Mandams warrant, ultimately refusing to join the lawsuit “as a wrongfully dismissed party.” Vidal has since reinstated his PQA as petitioner, stating: continued lack of party status) no longer applies. ’ She continued:
“Although you may choose not to give reasons, sanctions, including orders that may require you to reinstate yourself as a party to the PQA and pay VLSI fees pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.12(b). (6), PQA cannot avoid possible sanctions through continued non-participation.”
In today’s order granting a motion to dismiss the Mandams petition, the CAFC ruled that PQA would bear its costs, and each party (VLSI, USPTO, and PQA) would bear its own costs.
Other Powers of Attorney
The CAFC today issued three other decisions regarding Mandams, denying two of the petitions and granting one.
of Apple, Inc.The court granted Apple’s petition in part and told Judge Alan Albright in a timely manner Apple’s motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by SpaceTime3D, Inc. from Albright’s Waco Division courts for the West District of Texas to Austin. ordered to decide. However, the CAFC said, “Under the specific circumstances of this case, it was clearly an abuse of discretion to conclude that Apple had no right to extend Markman’s hearing or discovery deadline.” I can’t say,” he said. Delayed travel for stay. “
In two other orders, the CAFC dismissed a petition filed by Western Digital Technologies and Google asking Albright to direct the court to move the lawsuit from his court to the Northern District of California. The CAFC dismissed both petitions, stating that neither petitioner met Mandams’ high standards for relief.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 70164509
Author: Bill Perry