Wi-Fi One v Broadcom

WI-FI ONE, LLC, Appellant, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Appellee

Wi-Fi asserted before the Board and on appeal that Broadcom was barred from petitioning for inter parties review because it was in privity with a time-barred district court litigant under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). The Court disagreed, and reasserted its holding in Achates that §314(d) prohibits this court from reviewing the Board’s determination to initiate IPR proceedings, and that preclusion of judicial review is not limited to substantive patentability determinations. An opinion concurring in the result observes that in an IPR a legal distinction that exists between an “institution” decision and a final decision, and that a final decision concerning the time bar set forth by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) should be subject to review.

Federal Bar member attorneys may access the full case summary by registered patent attorney B.C. “Bill” Killough in the October 2016 issue of Federal Circuit Case Digest.

B.C. Killough is a registered patent attorney based in Charleston, SC. On behalf of his clients, Bill has obtained more than 300 United States patents, participated in prosecuting more than 100 foreign patent applications and he has filed more than 1000 trademark applications with the US Patent and Trademark Offices.