Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys.

Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

April 4, 2017, Decided

2015-2078, 2015-2079, 2015-2093, 2015-2096

Opinion

 [*1274]  [***1269]   Schall, Circuit Judge.

These consolidated appeals come to us following two related inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board"). Both proceedings involve now-expired U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 ("the '524 patent") owned by Wasica Finance GmbH and Bluearc Finance AG ("Wasica"). The [**2]  '524 patent has 21 claims. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. The first proceeding, IPR2014-00295, arose from a petition filed by Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. ("Continental") ("the '295 proceeding"). In the '295 proceeding, the Board found claims 1-3, 5, 10-19, and 21 of the '524 patent unpatentable as anticipated or obvious  [*1275]  and claims 6-9 and 20 patentable. The Board declined to institute review of claim 4. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Wasica Fin. GmbH, No. IPR2014-00295, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6029 (June 17, 2015) ("Continental Decision"). The second proceeding, IPR2014-00476, arose from a petition filed by Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., Sensata Technologies Holdings NV, and SI International (TOPCO), Inc. (collectively, "Schrader") ("the '476 proceeding"). In the '476 proceeding, the Board found claims 1-5, 10, 12-19, and 21 of the '524 patent unpatentable as anticipated or obvious and claims 6 and 9 patentable. The Board declined to institute review of claim 11.1 Schrader-Bridgeport Int'l v. Wasica Fin. GmbH, No. IPR2014-00476, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12884 (July 22, 2015) ("Schrader Decision").

Wasica now appeals those portions of the Board's decisions in the '295 and '476 proceedings finding claims 1-5, 10-19, and 21 unpatentable. For their part, Continental and Schrader cross-appeal, [**3]  respectively, those portions of the Board's decisions in the '295 and '476 proceedings finding claims 6-9 and 20 patentable.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decisions of the Board in the '295 and '476 proceedings that claims 1-5, 10-19, and 21 of the '524 patent are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. We also affirm the decisions of the Board in the '295 and '476 proceedings that claims 6-8 and 20 of the '524 patent are patentable. We reverse, however, the decisions of the Board in the '295 and '476 proceedings that claim 9 of the '524 patent is patentable.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

853 F.3d 1272 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5767 **; 122 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1267 ***; 2017 WL 1228579

WASICA FINANCE GMBH, BLUEARC FINANCE AG, Appellants v. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING NV, SI INTERNATIONAL (TOPCO), INC., Cross-Appellants

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-00295, IPR2014-00476.

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART.

CORE TERMS

signal, bit, sequence, transmitter, patentable, receiver, frequency, transmitting, unpatentable, anticipated, transmissions, proceedings, discloses, identification, decisions, terms, specification, emittance, tire, measuring device, switching, modulation, sensors, electrical, recites, wired, air pressure, prior art, construing, embodiment

Patent Law, Anticipation & Novelty, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Nonobviousness, Claims & Specifications, Claims, Evidence, Testimony, Competency, Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Prior Art, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence