Federal Circuit IP

Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

By Frank Morton-Park Published February 19, 2025

CAFC No. 2023-2346, Decided Jan. 14, 2025

(Lourie, Prost, Stark)

Overview: For IPR, published patent applications are deemed prior art as of their filing date, rather than publication date.

Background

  • Lynk Labs owns the ’400 patent directed to lighting systems with various LED circuit configurations, with a priority date of February 25, 2004.
  • Samsung filed a petition for IPR of the ’400 patent, with most grounds relying on U.S. 2004/0206970 (“Martin”), which was filed on April 16, 2003, published on October 21, 2004, and ultimately abandoned.
  • The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable, including claims 7-13 and 17 unpatentable based on Martin and at least one other reference.
  • Lynk Labs appealed the unpatentability determinations based on Martin, arguing that Martin was not prior art because Martin published after the ’400 patent’s priority date.

Issue: Whether the prior art status of a published patent application, for the purposes of IPR, should be assessed based on the application’s filing date or publication date.

Holding: Affirmed that Martin could serve as prior art to the ’400 patent, because the text of Sections 311(b) and 102(e)(1) allow IPR challenges based on published patent applications as of their filing date. Also affirmed the Board’s claim constructions and obviousness determinations.

Federal Circuit Analysis

  • While Section 311(b) only allows IPR challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” Congress designated published patent applications as prior art based on their filing date in pre-AIA Section 102(e)(1).
  • Public accessibility is important for determining whether something is a printed publication, but other statutory language controls when such printed publication qualifies as prior art.
  • The limitation “patents or printed publications” was first used to simplify reexamination proceedings by avoiding substantial discovery or factfinding for other types of prior art, and treatment of published patent applications as prior art is consistent with this purpose.

Takeaway

  • Published patent applications may be used as prior art in IPR if their filing date precedes the priority date of the challenged patent.