“Rogue’s argument is circular and tautological. The PTAB held that the claim could not be patented under lower burden, so JRS, in litigating the same issue, would not be allowed to pursue higher burden in the other forum. You lose protection, but “unpatentable” is not an absolute truth. It is the result of a lawsuit between adversaries. “
U.S. Patent 7,789,809 B2
Molly Metz, the inventor of the novel Revolution Rope, said in a U.S. Supreme Court answer filed Tuesday on behalf of her company, Jump Rope Systems, LLC, that Rogue Fitness argued that the lawsuit was justified. The company survives despite the revocation of her patent claims by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Jump Rope Systems has filed this letter in response to Rogue Fitness’s opposition filed on January 19.
Metz and Jump Rope Systems originally sued Rogue Fitness in 2018. However, after Rogue filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that two patents from Jump Rope Systems (US 7,789,809 B2 and US 8,136.208 B2) related to jump rope handle technology. was not patentable.
The Gist’s main allegation is that the revocation of the patent did not terminate Jump Rope Systems’ right to sue Rogue for pre-revocation damages, and that the IPR violated due process.
Brief also echoes the company’s previously filed petition asking the Supreme Court to “address the merits of the security estoppel issue and dismiss the Federal Circuit’s ruling.” XY, LLC“
petition
In its September 2022 motion for appeal, Metz’s attorneys argued that the CAFC’s application of the secured estoppel doctrine barring patent infringement actions based on the PTAB’s prior rulings on patent invalidity contradicted the Supreme Court’s decision. insisted on doing B&B Hardware, Inc. vs. Hargis Indus., 575 US 138 (2015); Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 US 191 (2014); Grogan v. Garner498 US 279 (1991).
In addition, Jump Rope Systems stated in its petition, “This case . He argued that the Supreme Court should take up the case because it presents a means.
In its response, the company added: “Issues related to secured estoppel and legitimacy arise in hundreds of patent infringement lawsuits each year, and thus have a substantial impact on patent infringement lawsuits.”
The company’s main complaint is that “the Federal Circuit has ruled XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC.”
Rogue Fitness briefs
Rogue’s opposition letter sets out four main reasons why a warrant should be denied.
First, Rogue argues that the petition is moot because Jump Rope Systems lacks evidence after the USPTO dismissed the claim on August 3, 2022.
Brief also argues that secured estoppel applies because “cancellation of patent claims in an IPR must bind parallel infringement actions.”
The last two reasons Rogue Fitness puts forward are precedent, and that the case is “a poor means of analyzing the problem presented.”
In its reply, Jump Rope Systems disputed some of Rogue’s precedents. Rogue argued that the jump rope system was not patentable because the PTAB ruled that the claims were revoked. However, the Gist alleges that the cited lawsuit involves reissuing a patent in which the patentee voluntarily surrenders the original patent, something Jump Rope Systems does not do. Absent.
Similarly, the reply summary refutes Rogue’s argument regarding the collateral estoppel doctrine. It argues that “Rogue’s argument to wipe out disparate standards and burdens in IPR v. patent infringement litigation is without merit.” The brief continues:
“Rogue’s argument is circular and tautological. The PTAB held that the claim could not be patented under lower burden, so JRS, in litigating the same issue, would not be allowed to pursue higher burden in the other forum. You lose protection, but “unpatentable” is not an absolute truth. It is the result of a lawsuit between adversaries. The Restatement exception (and the one adopted by Blonder Tang) exists specifically to preclude the use of the less expensive result to avoid the more expensive challenge. No authority has argued that the result of less burden on government agencies justifies overlooking the greater burden of Article 3 on the same issue. “
Rogue argued that this approach would render IPR proceedings “pointless,” but Jump Rope Systems wrote that it would remain an alternative to litigation. , there can be no injunction or damages for future infringement of the revoked patent,” the company argued in a brief response.
long journey
Molly Metz, the Colorado inventor behind Jump Rope Systems, told IPWatchdog in June 2022 about her precision speed jump rope handle, her story of patent infringement, and her experience with the PTAB invalidating her patent. Told.
“What happened to me is happening to others like me. Every week I get to hear from other inventors and their experiences with the PTAB. , is demoralizing small businesses and American innovators,” Metz said.
Metz filed a patent infringement lawsuit in 2018 after realizing that Rogue Fitness had released a line of jump ropes using her patented technology.
Rogue then filed a petition for inter partes review, and the PTAB invalidated two of Metz’s patents.
In November 2022, two Amici briefs were filed with the Supreme Court by the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund and the Fair Inventing Fund, arguing that the CAFC’s ruling is detrimental to U.S. innovation and patent rights.
The Eagle Forum argued that “this loss is not just for this inventor, but for all future American inventors whose creative geniuses are demoralized by it.” .
