POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY CO. INC. , No. 18-1768 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 3, 2022.
Download PDF
Case: 18-1768 Document: 106 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2020 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. IPR201601621. ______________________ 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. Case: 18-1768 2 Document: 106 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2020 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. PER CURIAM. 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. IPR201601621 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.
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.
