Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation
837 F.3d 1329
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215 directed to more efficient feedback (S-PDU) encoding in ARQ systems by using multiple message/encoding types (lists, bitmaps) selectable via a type identifier field.
- Broadcom petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of the ’215 patent, asserting anticipation by Seo (U.S. Patent No. 6,581,176).
- Wi‑Fi argued Broadcom was time‑barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with time‑barred Texas defendants; Wi‑Fi sought discovery on privity which the PTAB denied.
- The PTAB instituted IPR based on Seo, found Seo anticipated the challenged claims, and rejected Wi‑Fi’s timeliness/privity and claim construction arguments.
- Wi‑Fi appealed, arguing (1) the court can review the PTAB’s § 315(b) timeliness/privity decision (invoking Cuozzo to overrule Achates), and (2) Seo does not disclose the claimed “type identifier field,” or other claim elements (including the claim 15 length‑field issue).
- Federal Circuit affirmed: (a) Achates remains controlling — PTAB institution timeliness rulings are nonappealable under § 314(d); (b) substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s anticipation finding and claim constructions (including claim 15 read in light of the specification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wi‑Fi) | Defendant's Argument (Broadcom/PTAB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of PTAB § 315(b) timeliness/privity determination | Cuozzo implicitly overruled Achates; § 314(d) should not bar appellate review of time‑bar determinations | Achates controls: § 314(d) bars review of institution decisions tied to statutes governing institution (including § 315) | Affirmed Achates: § 314(d) precludes appellate review of timeliness/privity institution decisions; Cuozzo did not overrule Achates |
| Denial of discovery on privity/time‑bar issue | PTAB abused discretion by denying discovery needed to show privity/control | PTAB reasonably found Wi‑Fi failed to show discovery likely to produce useful evidence | PTAB denial proper; Wi‑Fi failed to show privity; Broadcom not time‑barred |
| Whether Seo discloses a "type identifier field" | Seo’s NAK‑TYPE is not a true type identifier because message always contains both list and bitmap fields (padded), so NAK‑TYPE does not control which fields "exist" | Seo teaches that certain fields "exist" only when NAK‑TYPE has particular values; expert testimony supports non‑presence of irrelevant fields | Substantial evidence supports PTAB: Seo discloses a type identifier field that conditions which fields exist |
| Claim 15 construction re: length field requirement | Claim 15’s grammar requires that each erroneous sequence number field be associated with an erroneous sequence number length field, so a length field is required | Claim 15 should be read per the specification: erroneous sequence number fields can stand alone; length fields are optional and only meaningful when paired | Court adopts PTAB’s construction based on specification: claim 15 does not require a length field; Seo anticipates the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (precludes appellate review of PTAB institution decisions tied to statutory institution limits)
- Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (U.S. 2016) (held certain PTAB institution decisions are nonreviewable under § 314(d) and clarified narrow exceptions)
- MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Federal Circuit precedent binds panels absent en banc or Supreme Court reversal)
- Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same principle on binding precedential effect)