Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[madprophet]

War Eagle- O would read this article as to why I say some of teh stuff I say-

https://www.wsgr.com/email/PTAB-Review/2019/May/PTAB-Review-May2019.pdf

this was earlier this year.

Say the Federal Circuit did not mean what it said. That is at least what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to do in a recent decision it
issued on remand from the Federal Circuit after the precedent-setting decision in MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC.
1

Three months after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in MaxLinear, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu.
9
It
held that when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initiates an IPR, it must resolve all of the claims challenged in the case and may not
choose to limit its review to only some of them.10 The court also rejected the director’s argument that the director has discretion to decide which
claims make it into an IPR, concluding that the statute “doesn’t authorize the director to start proceedings on his own initiative” or to “initiate
whatever kind of inter partes review he might choose.

Failing to follow the remand instructions from an agency’s reviewing court is certainly a bold move. Black’s Law Dictionary explains that, under the
mandate rule, a lower court “must follow the decision that the appellate court has made in the case, unless new evidence or an intervening change
in the law dictates a different result.” Rather than evaluate and explain whether SAS truly dictates departing from the Federal Circuit’s remand
instructions, the board described the court’s extensive instructions as “limited,” and failed to compare the challenged claims to the independent
claims previously held unpatentable.24 The board also curiously argued that it complied with the Federal Circuit’s instruction regarding collateral
estoppel by analyzing the patentability of the challenged claims “independent of any conclusion previously reached with respect to independent
claims 1 and 17.”25 But evaluating patentability independent of the patentability of claims 1 and 17 without analyzing patentable distinction is
precisely the opposite of what the Federal Circuit ordered the board to do.

SO yeah I am not crazy for saying this type of stuff, can and does happen.