Mobility Workx, LLC

Advanced Mobility and Emulation Systems for 4G and 5G

Mobility Workx Briefs – Appeal Court News

Mobility Workx Briefs – Appeal Court News

Mobility Works,LLC has file briefs that have been cited and covered by Bloomberg Law and other legal news agencies:

Mobility Works briefs was also covered indicating that :

Patent owner Mobility Workx suggested remand as the appropriate remedy in its pending appeal.

“In view of Arthrex, Mobility submits that the PTAB panel’s decision should be vacated and the present case remanded to the PTO for the director to issue a certificate confirming the challenged claims,” it said. It argues the board erred by failing to reach a final determination in its case within the statutory 12- or 18-month period.


A few bullet points from FedcircuitBlog (here) :

1. “Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which establish ‘structural bias’ as a violation of due process.”

2. “Whether the Director’s delegation of his responsibility to make final unreviewable institution decisions to the same APJ’s who make the Final Written Decision violates the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.”

3. “Whether subjecting the Pre-AIA ’417 Patent to an AIA Proceeding so fundamentally different from the post review proceedings that existed at the time Mobility’s inventors applied for and obtained their patent constitutes an unlawful taking of property.”

4. “Whether the PTAB’s decisions should be vacated and remanded because the PTAB panel that decided the cases was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.”

5. “Whether the PTAB’s holding of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 unpatentable over Liu or Liu and Gwon should be reversed because its finding that Liu or Liu and Gwon teach or suggest a ghost-mobile node ‘triggering signals’ that are ‘required to allocate resources and initiate mobility on behalf of the mobile node’ is not supported by substantial evidence.”


Comments are closed.