NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
Appellant
v.
KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
Appellee
UNITED STATES,
Intervenor
2018-1768
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-01621.
Decided: January 31, 2020
MATTHEW D. POWERS, Tensegrity Law Group LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER ROBINSON; AZRA HADZIMEHMEDOVIC, AARON MATTHEW NATHAN, SAMANTHA A. JAMESON, McLean, VA; NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN, KENNETH J. WEATHERWAX, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
22 POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
CO. INC.
MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Austin, TX. MELISSA N. PATTERSON, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by COURTNEY DIXON, DENNIS FAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
In its opening brief, Polaris Innovations Limited argues that the final written decision at issue in this appeal exceeds the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority and violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. See Appellant’s Br. 52 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2). This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Board’s decision in No. IPR2016-01621 is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.