Hafeman v. Google LLC

Hafeman v. Google LLC The Federal Circuit dismissed the patent owner's Sotera-stipulation challenge as barred by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) because it sought termination for reasons tied to institution. The court otherwise affirmed the Board's obviousness determinations, including its treatment of the "without assistance" limitation and secondary-considerations evidence. The decision reinforces that framing an institution-related complaint as an APA challenge to a final written decision will not avoid § 314(d), particularly where the requested remedy is termination of the IPR. Dismissed-in-part and affirmed-in-part; costs against appellant. The patents claim methods for displaying return information on a computer before or with a lock/security screen, including remotely initiating or changing that information "without assistance by a user." The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the patent owner's argument that the Board should have terminated the IPRs after an alleged post-institution violation of an LG Sotera stipulation in parallel district court litigation. On the merits, the court agreed that "without assistance by a user" modifies initiating or changing the return information, not the unrecited step of establishing an internet connection. The court affirmed the Board's reliance on Jenne for the challenged limitation and did not reach the patent owner's dependent prior-art argument under her rejected construction. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the patent owner failed to establish nexus for praise, commercial success, and copying evidence; copying arguments not fairly presented to the Board were forfeited. § 103 claim construction standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture precedential § 103 claim construction standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture precedential § 103 claim construction standing / jurisdiction