Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
Appellant

v.

KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
Appellee

UNITED STATES,
Intervenor
______________________

2018-1768
______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-
01621.
______________________

Decided: January 31, 2020
______________________

M
ATTHEW D. POWERS, Tensegrity Law Group LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by J
ENNIFER ROBINSON; AZRA HADZIMEHMEDOVIC,
AARON MATTHEW NATHAN, SAMANTHA A. JAMESON,
McLean, VA; N
ATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN, KENNETH J.
WEATHERWAX, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Los Ange-
les, CA.
Case: 18-1768 Document: 106 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2020

POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
CO
. INC.
2

MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, Fish & Richardson PC,
Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
D
AVID M. HOFFMAN, Austin, TX.

MELISSA N. PATTERSON, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for intervenor. Also represented by C
OURTNEY DIXON,
DENNIS FAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT;
T
HOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN
RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
______________________

Before R
EYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In its opening brief, Polaris Innovations Limited ar-
gues that the final written decision at issue in this appeal
exceeds the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
authority and violates the Constitution’s Appointments
Clause. See Appellant’s Br. 52 (citing U.S. Const. art. II,
§ 2, cl. 2). This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex,
Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2019). Accordingly, the Board’s decision in No. IPR2016-
01621 is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for
proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
VACATED AND REMANDED
C
OSTS
No costs.

Case: 18-1768 Document: 106 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2020