Qualcomm Prevails at Federal Circuit Based on Lack of Notice and Adequate Opportunity to Respond

16 August 2021 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: Sasha Vujcic George E. Quillin

In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit held that Qualcomm was not afforded notice of, or an adequate opportunity to respond to, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) novel construction of an undisputed claim limitation.1 Thus, the court vacated the PTAB’s determination that Qualcomm’s patent was invalid.2

The Patent and the PTAB’s Hearing

Qualcomm’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, is directed to generating a power tracking supply voltage.3 Intel petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of the ’675 patent.4  The parties never disputed that the “signals” of the claim limitation “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” should be construed to increase user bandwidth.5

During an oral hearing before the Board, one judge had a brief exchange with Intel on the purpose of the increased bandwidth requirement. Neither that judge nor the other two judges on the panel asked Qualcomm any questions about the increased bandwidth requirement.6 The Board construed the term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” in each asserted claim to mean “signals for transmission on multiple carriers,” omitting any requirement that the signals increase or extend bandwidth.7

Decision

The court ruled that Qualcomm did not receive sufficient notice and opportunity to respond under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) guarantees.8 The court distinguished the present case from Praxair.9 In Praxair, the Federal Circuit held that the Board may adopt a claim construction of a disputed term that neither party proposes without running afoul of the APA.10 In contrast, here, the issue of whether increased bandwidth was a required part of the claim construction was not in dispute.11 The court also relied on reasoning from SAS Institute.12 In SAS Institute, the Federal Circuit stated that it was a “reasonable approach” to rely on the Board’s institution decision claim interpretation because the patent owner “agreed with [that] interpretation in its patent owner’s response” but it was unreasonable to expect parties to “have briefed or argued, in the alternative, hypothetical constructions not asserted by their opponent.”13 Here, the court explained that the patent owner agreed with the increased bandwidth requirement proposed by the petitioner, which is similar to the latter scenario in SAS Institute.14

The court rejected Intel’s threshold argument that Qualcomm was not prejudiced, stating that “by removing [the bandwidth extension] requirement, the Board eliminated an element on which Intel bore the burden of proof.”15 The court distinguished Intel’s supportive case TQ Delta that purportedly showed that the oral hearing provided Qualcomm notice and an opportunity to respond.16 In TQ Delta, the patent owner argued for a narrow interpretation for the term in its Patent Owner Response and, during the hearing, the Board “repeatedly asked [the patent owner] about its narrow construction of the term.”17 The court observed that these circumstances weren’t present in the current case.18 The court also stated that, like in another case, Dell, the patent owner did not have an adequate opportunity to respond because the hearing presented no opportunity to supply evidence.19 Finally, the Court disagreed with Intel’s assertion Qualcomm had an adequate opportunity in that it could have requested a rehearing because this “would effectively require an aggrieved party to seek rehearing before appealing a Board’s failure to provide notice and an opportunity to respond.”20

The court also affirmed the Board’s ruling that a power tracker means-plus-function limitation did not require an algorithm in the corresponding structure.

Impact

The Qualcomm ruling sheds some light on how the court handles the APA’s guarantee of notice and an opportunity to respond in IPRs. Companies who may want to rely on a Board’s claim construction may consider, for each claim element, proposing a construction that would increase the likelihood of the element being disputed by parties. Although Qualcomm is distinguished from Praxair, it is unclear how the court would rule in a case where an element is disputed but there is little exchange or questioning by the judges before they decide their own interpretation of a claim element.

------------------------------------------------

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., Nos. 2020-1589 – 2020-1594, 2021 WL 3160860, at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Id. at 2

Id.

Id. at 5

Id.

Id.

7 Id. at 7

Id. at 8

Id.

10 Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

11 Qualcomm at 8

12 Id. at 9

13 SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016), reversed on other grounds, SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018)

14 Qualcomm at 9

15 Id. at 10

16 Id. at 11

17 TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

18 Qualcomm at 11

19 Id.

20 Id. at 13

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services