Ideahub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IDEAHUB INC.,
Appellant
v.
UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2022-1160
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
00702.
______________________
Decided: February 10, 2023
______________________
K AYVAN B. N OROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
gued for appellant.
ANGELA M. O LIVER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by RAGHAV
BAJAJ , Austin, TX; D EBRA J ANECE MCC OMAS , D AVID L.
MCCOMBS , Dallas, TX; MICHELLE ASPEN, ROSHAN
MANSINGHANI, Unified Patents, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD.
______________________
Case: 22-1160 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IDEAHUB INC. v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STOLL , Circuit
Judges.
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
Unified Patents, LLC filed a petition with the United
States Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter
partes review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,849. Idea-
hub, Inc. appeals from the Board’s Final Written Decision
determining all challenged claims are unpatentable as ob-
vious over asserted prior art references and denying Idea-
hub’s motion to amend because the proposed substitute
claim lacked written description support in the originally
filed disclosures.
We affirm. First, the Board’s finding that Kalevo
teaches determining “the intra mode for the current block
. . . by using . . . mathematical expressions” is supported by
substantial evidence, including the disclosure of Kalevo
and expert testimony interpreting that disclosure. Thus,
we affirm the Board’s conclusion that the challenged claims
are unpatentable as obvious. Second, the Board’s finding
that the portions of the ’849 patent specification that Idea-
hub identified in its motion to amend and subsequent re-
vised motion to amend did not provide written description
support for “determining an intra mode for a neighboring
block of a current block” is supported by substantial evi-
dence, including expert testimony explaining the cited por-
tions of the ’849 specification. We therefore affirm the
Board’s denial of Ideahub’s revised motion to amend as
well. Although Ideahub presents new arguments on appeal
purporting to show that the proposed substitute claim has
written description support—arguments which may well
have merit—those arguments were not made before the
Board and are thus forfeited. In re Google Tech. Holdings
LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regu-
larly stated and applied the important principle that a po-
sition not presented in the tribunal under review will not
Case: 22-1160 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IDEAHUB INC. v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC 3
be considered on appeal in the absence of exceptional cir-
cumstances.”).
For the reasons above, we affirm the Board’s Final
Written Decision in its entirety.
AFFIRMED
Case: 22-1160 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2023

-- 3 of 3 --