Micron, Dell, HP win appeal over conflict claims tied to US patent official
Refiles with updated company code for Dell in paragraph 1
By Blake Brittain
Aug 9 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rulings for Micron MU.O, Dell DELL.Nand HP HPQ.N, finding that the decisions could stand even though the attorney who represented the tech companies later became the office's director.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the companies' adversary in the USPTO case, patent owner Unification Technologies, had not shown that Kathi Vidal's previous participation in the case influenced the administrative judges who invalidated its patents.
Unification's lead attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision. Micron, Dell and HP's attorney Linda Coberly of Winston & Strawn and a USPTO spokesperson declined to comment.
Unification sued Micron, Dell and HP for infringing the patents, which relate to managing and deleting data in memory chips, in Texas federal court in 2020. The HP and Dell cases have since been dismissed, while the Micron case is ongoing.
The tech companies -- represented by Vidal, then a partner at Winston & Strawn -- asked the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate the patents later that year. President Joe Biden nominated Vidal to head the office in 2021 and she was confirmed in 2022, after which she recused herself from the case.
The board invalidated Unification's patents later that year. Unification argued at the Federal Circuit that the case improperly required PTAB judges to "evaluat[e] the arguments of their boss" and said they were "monetarily disincentivized" from ruling against Vidal because she reviews their performance.
U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Chen wrote for a three-judge panel on Friday that Unification "provided no evidence that the Director controls [PTAB judge] bonuses or performance reviews," and that a PTAB judge would have no reason to think that their decision "could affect their bonus determination because of the way that the Director might react."
The case is Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 23-1348.
For Unification: Jon Rastegar of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy
For Micron, Dell and HP: Linda Coberly of Winston & Strawn
For the USPTO: Robert McManus of the USPTO
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
