 |
* USPTO MAY REVISIT ISSUES NOT NECESSARY TO PRIOR JUDGMENT ON REMAND
Intell. Pixels Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, 24-2174 — On Friday in an opinion by Judge DYK, the Federal Circuit affirmed a USPTO inter partes review decision on remand that held IPL’s patent for methods and systems of generating digital images using an external visual server were unpatentable as obvious. IPL argued the USPTO’s decision exceeded the court’s mandate when it made two findings that were not set aside in the opinion regarding claim limitations “generating” an image at the server and “compressing at least one updated image” from the server.
The Federal Circuit disagreed. The court’s remand rested solely on the USPTO’s determination that the prior art did not disclose the “generating” limitation and any findings made on that issue were compelled by the mandate. Findings of fact conducted by the UPSTO concerning the “compressing” limitation were not subject to appeal and not part of the court’s mandate.
(1 to 4 stars rate impact of opinion on patent & trademark law)
WIPO COORDINATION COMMITTEE APPROVES LAURA PETER AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY
Last week the WIPO Coordination Committee approved Director General DAREN TANG’s proposed slate of Deputy Directors General, including former USPTO Deputy Director LAURA PETER (USA) for the Patents and Technology Sector, effective October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2032. Peter previously served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Deputy Director (2018–2021) and will now oversee the PCT and WIPO’s patent- and trade-secret-related programs.
The other approved DDGs are SHEN CHANGYU (China, CNIPA Commissioner) for Brands and Designs; PASCAL FAURE (France, INPI) for Copyright, Creative Economy and IP Governance Sector; and MZUKISI QOBO (South Africa) for Regional and National Development.
NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS, MORE TRANSPARENCY: UPC COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES KEY PROCEDURAL RULES
On 29 June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) in Luxembourg issued some significant procedural decisions.
In UPC-CoA-57-2026 (Polytechnik v. Dall Energy), the CoA partially set aside a broad evidence production order issued by the Copenhagen Local Division (LD). The CoA confirmed that an order was justified in principle, given plausible evidence of infringement and indications that the relevant technical information was solely within the defendant’s control. But it found the order’s scope excessive because the LD had not explained why less intrusive measures would have been insufficient. The CoA also held that the order’s reference to “other materials” was an open-ended category insufficiently tied to the issues in dispute and inconsistent with the requirement of specificity.
In UPC-CoA-52/2026 and UPC-CoA-53/2026 (Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP), the CoA established that the balance of interests generally tips in favor of granting the public (including law firms) access to written submissions once underlying infringement proceedings have ended. After two infringement proceedings were terminated before a decision on the merits, a law firm sought access to the parties’ written submissions for educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access, subject to redactions of confidential information. The Appellant challenged that decision. The CoA determined that a law firm’s general interest in understanding how parties and the UPC conduct proceedings constitutes a sufficient legitimate interest to justify access.
Thank you to European Practice Committee members ADAM LACY (Hoffmann · Eitle) and KELLY MERKEL (Eaton Corp.) for contributing this item.