Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The '429 patent concerns '[a] port extension apparatus for extending ports of an end-user device,' such as a laptop computer. The device allows for easier connections between, for example, a laptop computer and peripheral devices such as a printer. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc. (D) filed a petition for inter partes review challenging most claims of the '429 patent as obvious. Each obviousness ground relied on a combination of prior art that included Kuo. The relevant portion of Kuo discloses a 'control system comprising a main control unit that supports USB Type-C (USB-C) interface specification, [and] an image signal processing unit electrically connected to the main control unit and adapted for receiving a display port signal.' Both the '429 patent and Kuo concern docking stations for connecting multiple devices to an end-user device. The Board found claims 1-6 and 13-17 of the '429 patent unpatentable as obvious, relying on Kuo as prior art under section 102(a)(2). Kuo's effective filing date is December 13, 2016-before the '429 patent's priority date of April 27, 2017. P argued that Kuo is not prior art by virtue of section 102(b)(2)(B) because the inventor purportedly 'publicly disclosed' the relevant subject matter of Kuo through the private sale of a device that incorporated the invention and predated Kuo's effective filing date. P contends that the inventor's sale of the so-called HyperDrive device constituted a public disclosure by the inventor of the relevant subject matter in Kuo. Mr. Liao, the inventor of the '429 patent, offered to sell the HyperDrive to P's owner on November 17, 2016. After obtaining a HyperDrive sample, Sanho placed an order for 15,000 HyperDrive units on December 6, 2016, which was accepted by Mr. Liao's company. P made no showing that the sale of the HyperDrive that predated Kuo's effective filing date was publicized in any way, or that there were any such sales other than the private sale of HyperDrives from the inventor to P. There is also nothing in the record to indicate that the order for 15,000 HyperDrives was fulfilled before Kuo's effective filing date, or what became of those devices. The Board held that P failed to show that the inventor publicly disclosed the subject matter of Kuo before Kuo's effective filing date. It then concluded that 'Kuo qualifies as prior art, not excluded under § 102(b)(2)(B).' The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable over combinations that all included Kuo. P appealed. D argues that, even if the HyperDrive embodied the relevant features of the claimed invention, the sale did not publicly disclose the relevant subject matter for purposes of section 102(b)(2)(B) because the relevant features of the claimed invention were not sufficiently publicized to render the subject matter 'publicly disclosed.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.