No. 20-1700

Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: 5th-amendment constitutional-challenge due-process federal-circuit federal-circuit-rule-36 inter-partes-review patent patent-review patent-validity retroactivity
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Patent Trademark Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-11-05 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does retroactive application of the inter partes review process violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In these related cases, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed nine separate final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On inter partes review, the Board collectively found unpatentable claims of eight patents, each of which was duly issued prior to the availability of the statutorily-created inter partes review procedure. These decisions directly conflict with, and now put in jeopardy, the verdict of a federal jury that found the patents valid and infringed six years prior, assessing over $44 million in past damages alone. The Federal Circuit did not issue an opinion in any of the appeals, even though the underlying decisions rested on a claim construction standard that was indisputably incorrect. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Does retroactive application of the inter partes review process violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 2. Does the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 to summarily affirm decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “without opinion” violate 35 U.S.C. § 144, which provides that the Federal Circuit “shall issue. . . its mandate and opinion” upon its determination of appeals arising from the Patent and Trademark Office?

Docket Entries

2021-11-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
2021-10-15
Reply of petitioner Ultratec, Inc. filed.
2021-10-01
Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
2021-10-01
Brief of respondents CaptionCall, LLC et al. in opposition filed.
2021-08-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 1, 2021, for all respondents.
2021-08-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-02
Response Requested. (Due September 1, 2021)
2021-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-01
Waiver of right of respondent CaptionCall, LLC to respond filed.
2021-06-28
Waiver of right of respondent Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office to respond filed.
2021-06-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 8, 2021)

Attorneys

CaptionCall, LLC
Pratik Arvind ShahAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Respondent
Pratik Arvind ShahAkin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Respondent
Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Ultratec, Inc.
James Eric GoldschmidtQuarles & Brady LLP, Petitioner
James Eric GoldschmidtQuarles & Brady LLP, Petitioner