Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[abcd12]

CAFC has spoken and decided that privity the standard. So "privy" is the law of the land and PTAB must follow the court's "decree" and adopt the privity standard.

Since we (judge and ordinary citizen) all look at things differently, the question now is, what is PTAB's interpretation of "privity" and "control" in the context of RPI in this case?

My first take is this-

It will come down to whether PTAB adopts privy vs control.
CAFC favors privy, PTAB first go round was focused on control.
As was Worlds. CAFC kept hammering privy and thus Worlds has adopted that.
It is one of the reasons why I think if t goes back to CAFC its a slam dunk. Worlds can prove privy as it is much more broad, they are having a real hard time proving control with existing evidence. PTAB did not allow new evidence, so that is why this issue is the biggest concern for me.

I have not looked at the cited cases yet, so haven't dug into it.
Just my first take.