In a precedential decision issued on January 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit resolved an important question regarding the use of published patent applications as prior art in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ¹, the Court held that under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b) and 102(e)(1), a published patent application is deemed prior art as of its filing date for IPR proceedings, even when the application was published after the challenged patent's priority date.

Key Holdings

• A published patent application, as defined in § 102(e)(1), qualifies as a "printed publication" under § 311(b)
• § 102(e)(1) allows published applications to serve as prior art as of their filing dates

Background

The case arose from Samsung's IPR challenge to Lynk Labs' U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400, relating to LED driver technology. Part of Samsung’s IPR challenge relied on U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0206970 (“Martin”). Specifically at issue Martin was filed before, but published after the priority date of Lynk Labs' ‘400 patent. Lynk Labs argued that Martin could not qualify as prior art for the IPR because it was not publicly accessible before the priority date of the ‘400 patent.

Court's Analysis

Lynk Labs argued that § 311(b)’s recitation of “printed publication” corresponded to § 102(a) and (b)’s “printed publication” and, therefore, excluded § 102(e) prior art. The Federal Circuit rejected Lynk Labs' argument, explaining that:

1. The term "printed publication" in § 311(b) includes published patent applications under § 102(e);
2. While public accessibility is required to be considered a printed publication, other statutory provisions govern the time at which it is considered prior art;
3. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) provides a special rule for published patent applications, treating them as prior art as of their filing date;
4. This interpretation maintains consistency with how published patent applications are treated in district court litigation;

Practical Implications

This decision provides important clarity for IPR practitioners and patent owners:

• Petitioners can rely on published patent applications as prior art based on their filing dates;
• This decision expands the universe of available prior art references in IPRs;
• This decision promotes uniformity in the prior art analysis between IPR and district court litigation;
• This decision reinforces the intent that IPRs focus on documented prior art that can be analyzed without extensive factual discovery;

Looking Ahead

The Federal Circuit's decision resolves around a significant question about the scope of prior art available in IPR proceedings. Companies should review their IPR strategies in light of this ruling, as it confirms the ability to rely on published applications' earlier filing dates when challenging a patent’s validity.

For More Information

For questions about how this opinion may affect your business or for assistance with IPRs, please contact Victor Johnson (victor.johnson@dentons.com), Forrest Gothia (forrest.gothia@dentons.com), or anyone from the Dentons US Intellectual Property & Technology Group.

This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with legal counsel for advice specific to your circumstances.

1. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 762, 2025 WL 85559, Case No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir. 2025)↩