Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions

Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to largely continue its operations. The most visible of these changes was that the Court began to hear all arguments telephonically, with some early denials of at least some parties’ requests for an oral hearing. Another less visible shift was that the Court issued summary affirmances in cases in which there was no oral argument.

At the same time, the number of appeals to the Court dipped this year, perhaps as a result of broader economic uncertainty. The largest drop was in post-grant review cases from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The number of appeals from the PTO reached an all-time high in 2019 at more than 650 appeals. In 2020, that number was less than 550 appeals, which may reflect a settling of expectations since the number of post-grant institutions remained steady from FY2018 to FY2019. Despite having fewer appeals, there was an increase in the pendency time of appeals in post-grant review cases from the PTO, reaching an all-time average high of slightly more than 17 months from docketing of the appeal until the opinion was filed. Additionally, the Court issued the fewest precedential opinions in post-grant review cases in the last five years, by percentage. Most cases were decided by non-precedential opinions.

You may download this full report by clicking the download button or view the individual articles by clicking on the specific title below in the Table of Contents.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Data and Trends: AIA PTAB Appeals to the Federal Circuit (Infographics)
• Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., 949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, 966 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et. al., Nos. 2018-2338, -2339, -2395, -2396, 2020 WL 6814481 (modified November 20, 2020) (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (U.S.)
• Mayborn Grp., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 965 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Comcast Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 951 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020) and Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 966 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Sealy Tech., LLC v. SSB Manufacturing Co., 825 F. Appx. 795 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020)
• Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, 971 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Amneal Pharm. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, 960 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)