The following arguments will be available live to the public, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.
Thursday, March 6, 2025, 10:00 A.M.
Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-2208, Courtroom 203, Panel I
Appellant Fintiv, Inc. ("Fintiv") is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (the "'125 patent"). The '125 patent is directed to a system and method for conducting monetary transactions between a mobile phone and a card reader. Fintiv accused Appellee Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") Apple Wallet and Apple Pay features of infringing its '125 patent. After the parties disputed how to construe the term "widget," the district court construed the term as "software that is either an application or works within an application, and which may have a user interface." Initially, the district court denied Apple's motion for summary judgment that its accused products did not contain a "widget" as construed by the court. But two years later, the district court reheard and granted Apple's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, specifically on the grounds that Fintiv failed to identify a widget in Apple's source code. Fintiv appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit will decide whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on Fintiv's failure to identify a widget in Apple's source code.
Fintiv argues that the district court erred in requiring that Fintiv point to specific Apple source code for the widget claim limitation. Fintiv makes two arguments: (1) that direct evidence of source code is not required to prove infringement; and (2) that the district court misapplied its construction of widget. Fintiv points to case law saying that, at the summary judgment stage, a patent owner need not point to the specific location of allegedly infringing code. Thus, Fintiv claims that the district court's requirement to identify specific source code caused the court to overlook otherwise applicable evidence that Apple's accused product contained a widget. Further, Fintiv argues that the district court misapplied its construction of widget. Fintiv argues that the construction of widget required only that the code act upon the widget. Thus, Fintiv maintains that the district court's conclusion is based upon a misunderstanding of the claim language. In essence, because the claims only require that code "act upon" the widget, Fintiv believes it proffered evidence supporting infringement under this construction.
Apple argues that, under the court's construction of widget, the district court properly required Fintiv to identify a widget un the software, whether source code or non-source code. Apple contends that summary judgment was proper because the district court found that Fintiv failed to show any evidence of a widget in Apple's products—not just source code evidence. Thus, Apple argues that the district court did not impose a source code requirement as Fintiv contends. While Fintiv's expert opined that some source code acts on a widget, Apple contends that the expert failed to demonstrate why a skilled artisan would understand that the thing "acted upon" by the source code would qualify as a widget. Thus, Apple requests that the Federal Circuit affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Friday March 7, 2025, 1:30 P.M.
Hyatt v. Stewart, No. 18-2390, Courtroom 201, Panel M
The saga of this case begins back in 2005, when Gilbert Hyatt sued the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the District Court for the District of Columbia, under 35 U.S.C. § 145, regarding final rejections in four patent applications. The USPTO defended on several grounds, including prosecution laches, an equitable defense that renders patents unenforceable from an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecuting the application. Following a bench trial on prosecution laches in 2017, the district court initially granted judgment in favor of Mr. Hyatt, but the Federal Circuit reversed in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, finding the USPTO had met its burden in making a prima facie case that Mr. Hyatt forfeited his four applications based on prosecution laches. The Federal Circuit remanded for the district court to consider Mr. Hyatt's rebuttal in the first instance. Following trial and additional briefing, the district court entered its findings of fact and judgment in favor of the USPTO, barring Mr. Hyatt's four applications based on prosecution laches. Mr. Hyatt now appeals this ruling.
Mr. Hyatt presents two primary arguments on appeal. First, Mr. Hyatt asserts that the defense of prosecution laches does not exist because Congress did not incorporate the doctrine by its amendments to the Patent Act of 1952. Mr. Hyatt cites two recent Supreme Court cases—Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) and SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017)—and argues those decisions show Congress affirmatively displaced laches defenses. Mr. Hyatt argues that Federal Circuit caselaw permitting prosecution laches cannot be reconciled with the recent Petrella and SCA Hygiene decisions. Second, Mr. Hyatt argues that he reasonably relied on a 1992 Board decision regarding his conduct in filing and prosecuting the applications to show his conduct did not constitute prosecution laches.
The USPTO opposes both of Mr. Hyatt's arguments. As to the first argument, the USPTO maintains that the 1952 Patent Act incorporated equitable defenses such as prosecution laches and that Federal Circuit precedent continues to uphold such defenses. The USPTO also distinguishes the recent Supreme Court holdings, arguing that, notwithstanding the decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized that other equitable defenses remain available. As to the second argument, the USPTO argues Mr. Hyatt has waived his reasonable-reliance argument by failing to make this argument at the district court. Should the Federal Circuit consider the issue, the USPTO maintains that Mr. Hyatt's other documented practices and conduct were still so abusive and prejudicial such that the Federal Circuit should affirm the district court's holding.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
