Incorporating Entire Arguments By Reference Can Lead To Disastrous Outcomes

In General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., Case No. 19-1856 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2020) (non-precedential), General Access Solutions ("GAS") appealed from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") in an inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding holding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,173,916 and 6,891,810 were obvious over prior art cited by Sprint Spectrum L.P. ("Sprint"). Specifically, the Board found certain claims to be unpatentable based on various grounds relying on U.S. Patent No. 7,366,133 ("Ahy") as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). During the IPR proceeding, GAS did not argue against the Ahy-based obviousness analysis for many of the challenged claims. Instead, GAS unsuccessfully argued that inventor Paul Struhsaker conceived of the challenged claimed inventions before the July 21, 2000 filing date of Ahy. Even though the court designated its decision "non-precedential," it offers important