USPTO to Reopen Biometric Patent Dispute in Win for ASSA ABLOY

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has re-evaluted its earlier rulings on certain CPC Patent Technologies patents due to disputes over the interpretation of the term “biometric signal,” following a challenge by ASSA ABLOY—and it has decided to vacate them. The patent office will conduct further proceedings for a more thorough review.

The dispute involves a conflict between ASSA ABLOY – a conglomerate specializing in locks and security solutions, including biometric time and access tech – and CPC Patent Technologies. The main point of contention is the interpretation of the term “biometric signal” within CPC Patent Technologies’ patents. This term is important because it affects how the patents are understood and whether ASSA ABLOY’s products might be infringing upon them.

ASSA ABLOY challenged the validity of these patents at the USPTO. The company argued that the claimed inventions were not sufficiently innovative or novel, as required for patentability, based on their interpretation of key terms like “biometric signal.” The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially reviewed the case and decided in favor of maintaining the patents as valid. However, ASSA ABLOY disagreed with how the PTAB interpreted the term “biometric signal” in its decision.

Following this disagreement, ASSA ABLOY requested a further review by the Director of the USPTO. In this review, the Director found that the PTAB’s interpretation of “biometric signal” was indeed problematic because it introduced a new definition that neither party had proposed. This definition included a specific requirement that the biometric signal “provides secure access to a controlled item,” which was a significant point of contention.

This is a problem because the PTAB was essentially changing the terms of the dispute. Both companies had their interpretations of what “biometric signal” meant, and this was a key part of their dispute. But when they asked the USPTO to clarify, the USPTO essentially introduced a new definition that neither company had suggested. This new definition changed the understanding of the patents significantly, which is problematic because it affects how the patents are evaluated for their validity and how they might be applied or enforced.

As a result of these findings, the Director decided to vacate the PTAB’s earlier decisions and remanded the cases for further examination. This means that the earlier decisions upholding the patents are temporarily nullified, and the PTAB will have to reassess the patents considering the correct interpretation of “biometric signal.” This will involve further arguments and evidence from both ASSA ABLOY and CPC Patent Technologies to clarify how the term should be understood and applied in the context of the patents.

Source: Bloomberg Law

–

March 18, 2024 – by Alex Perala and the FindBiometrics Editorial Team