NATURAL ALTERNATIVES v. IANCU , No. 17-1963 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2017-1963 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,048. ______________________ Decided: October 1, 2018 ______________________ SCOTT A. M. CHAMBERS, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD J. OPARIL, KEVIN M. BELL, BILLY DELL CHISM; MATTHEW ZAPADKA, Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, Washington, DC. MARY L. KELLY, Office of the Solicitor, United States NATURAL ALTERNATIVES v. IANCU 2 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS, AMY J. NELSON. ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PROST, Chief Judge. Woodbolt Distributors, LLC (“Woodbolt”) requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) reexamine U.S. Patent No. 8,129,422 (“the 422 patent”) owned by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (“NAI”). The PTO ordered inter partes reexamination, and the examiner rejected the challenged claims as anticipated by or obvious over cited prior art, including a parent of the reexamined patent. NAI appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final determination affirming the examiner’s rejections and its subsequent denial of NAI’s request for rehearing. The 422 patent issued from the seventh U.S. application in a chain of eight U.S. applications generally directed to increasing athletes’ endurance. This opinion addresses NAI’s priority challenge as to the 422 patent. Our companion opinion, Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Matal, No. 17-1962, addressed NAI’s priority challenge as to the patent issuing from the eighth application—U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 (“the 381 patent”). Because the facts and procedural history in the two cases are substantially identical, we do not repeat our discussion of those topics here. Regarding the merits of this appeal, we affirm the Board’s final determination and its denial of NAI’s request for rehearing for the reasons stated in our companion opinion. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
