2020 years 11 month 25 day, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Bank of Atlanta) It's Bozeman Financial LLC (Postman) 9 month 8 In a petition for certiorari filed in the U. S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Before Bozeman filed a certiorari request, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Make a ruling, The United States Patent and Trademark Office was maintained (USPTO) Patent Review and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decision of——PTAB According to "United States code" The first 101 Article holds that Bozeman owns the No 6754640 Us patent No 21 to 24 The claim and the No 8768840 Us patent No 1 to 20 It is correct that the claim refers to the object of unpatentable.

In the process of reaching a verdict, CAFC First identification of defendant (all 12 The Federal Reserve Bank of America) Can be regarded as "America Invents Act" (AIA) Defined in "people" (person) , Therefore, there are grounds for qualification AIA Propose post-authorization review (post-issuance review) request. Bank of Atlanta said in its dissenting opinion, CAFC The correct verdict was reached: it AIA For the post-authorization reconsideration clause, The Reserve Bank should not be seen as part of sovereignty, And Supreme Court review is not necessary.

CAFC Proceedings of CAFC Determines that the Reserve Bank is qualified to make a request for post-authorization reconsideration "people" , It was based on the Supreme Court decision Return Mail, Inc. v United States Postal Serv. ( "United States Postal Service" ) The position of the case——The federal government, including federal agencies "Does not belong to the basis AIA The person who filed the request for post-authorization review" . CAFC Compare the Reserve Bank with Return Mail The Postal Service in the case draws a distinction.

CAFC Think that, The bank does not accept appropriations from Congress, Bank employees are not appointed by the president, Banks cannot issue legally enforceable rules, So banks are different from governments, Those that may be reviewed after authorization is sought "people" . Postman filed a motion for full review, CAFC in 2020 years 6 month 3 The request was denied, Postman then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Bozeman filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. In his petition, Bozeman asked the Court to consider the following questions: Federal reserve bank (The Federal Reserve System "Operating mechanism" ) Is different from the federal government, Whether it qualifies to be admissible AIA Reconsideration after seeking authorization "people" .

Postman said, CAFC Wrongly identifying banks as different from governments, Belong to AIA Defined and Return Mail In the case "people" Concept of. Postman said CAFC Adjudication bank "people" Is wrong, because AIA This issue is not mentioned, CAFC I filled this hole by creating my own set of formalistic tests, It ignores many important features of the Federal Reserve system. Postman also said Supreme Court review is necessary, because CAFC s decision conflicts with related rulings by several other appeals courts, This raises a very important question about federal law, Is something the Supreme Court should have addressed but hasn't.

The Bank of Atlanta said in its dissenting opinion, CAFC Due consideration is given to the characteristics of the Reserve Bank relevant to the issue at hand, That bank involvement in the patent system bears little resemblance to federal agency involvement.

In addition, Bank of Atlanta points out, CAFC The ruling is not necessarily reviewed by the Supreme Court, Because how is the Reserve Bank supposed to be viewed in a particular statute in a particular statute. Therefore, Different statutes define the reserve Bank differently. Whether the Reserve Bank belongs to AIA in "people" There are no broad implications for other statutes. Bank of Atlanta also said, Because the Reserve Bank holds the patent in its name, And can be sued for patent infringement, Therefore AIA Permitted reserve bank (Like other people, not like the government) It is logical to make a request for reconsideration after authorization.

Therefore, Bank of Atlanta concluded, Supreme Court review is unnecessary.

(Compiled from ipwatchdog. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network  translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.