Kilpatrick Townsend Wins Landmark Case for Broadcom

by: Kilpatrick Townsend

On June 14, 2019 the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, holding that sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO. Kilpatrick Townsend Partners Kris Reed and David Sipiora and Associate Ted Mayle represented the prevailing appellees LSI and Avago — both subsidiaries of longtime client Broadcom.

This was a closely watched case with broad potential implications, extending well beyond the immediate appeal. Had the University of Minnesota prevailed, state universities and other state entities would have enjoyed full immunity from IPR and other post-grant challenges to their patents, giving them significant advantages over defendants in enforcement actions. Also, such a decision likely would have led to other plaintiff entities “renting” IPR immunity from state entities, undermining the centerpiece of Congress’s America Invents Act.

Given the decision’s importance, amicus briefs were filed by a host of state, industry, academic, and federal government entities, including the DOJ, attorneys general from a dozen states, numerous state universities, a variety of industry consortiums, and a contingent of law school professors led by Stanford’s Mark Lemley. Kris Reed’s arguments at the oral hearing for LSI/Avago and the other appellees ultimately shaped the Federal Circuit’s opinion, including an unusual “Additional Views” segment following the precedential opinion. Here, the same panel articulated why a separate argument made by KT represents an independent ground on which the court could have affirmed. Law360 recently named this decision as one of the Top Patent Cases of 2019 in its Midyear Report.

Share
DISCLAIMER

While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.

DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.

×