Welcome to Skilled in the Art. I'm Law.com IP reporter Scott Graham. It's a busy day in IP land so let's get right to it:

• Fish & Richardson's new CEO will continue to practice while looking to beef up international work.

• The devil may care when it comes to patent owners preserving their Arthrex rights.

• 'Foundational' Nokia patent on smartphone cameras is back in play against Samsung.

• Small inventor takes his shot at the Supreme Court on Section 101.

As always, you can email me your thoughts and follow me on Twitter.

Fish & Richardson's John Adkisson, left, and Peter Devlin

Fish's New Leader Eyes Asian Markets

The votes are in and we have a new leader.

Nope, I'm not talking about the Democrats. Fish & Richardson principals voted to make John Adkisson president and CEO of the firm on Feb. 20. He succeeds Peter Devlin, who served in the role for 20 years.

Adkisson said the IP-focused firm is in good shape for the hand-off. It just came off a year of 10% revenue growth to $472 million, thanks to a lot of high-stakes litigation and a strong patent prosecution practice, which together are helping fuel the country's busiest post-grant practice.

The 49-year-old pharmaceutical litigator, who is based in the firm's Twin Cities office, said he plans to continue practicing while running the 363-lawyer firm, though he'll be relying more on his colleagues' support than in the past.

"I want to hear directly from clients about the types of issues they're facing and what they're looking for from their law firms," he said. "I don't think there's any better way to do that than through client work."

Adkisson also has ambitions to continue growing the firm's presence beyond U.S. borders. Fish opened an office in Shenzhen, China last year and has a longstanding outpost in Munich. While there are no immediate plans to open additional offices, "I do think we are well-positioned to get more international work than in the past," including in markets such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, he said.

Adkisson has been practicing for 24 years, including 19 with Fish and brings a variety of management experience to the position, having served on the compensation committee during the early part of the decade and then the firm's management committee for several years. He's also been serving as managing group leader for the firm's litigation group.

Fish Delaware chief Susan Morrison, who's worked with Adkisson on litigation and on management issues, described him as "a thoughtful and fair manager, who I've seen effectively tackle difficult issues to come to solutions that were best for all parties."

Outgoing CEO Devlin has said he'll remain available as long as needed, and Adkisson said he'll "absolutely" be relying on his predecessor for advice and counsel as he grows into the new role. "My title has changed," Adkisson said, "but the transition is gradual."

Orrick's Jared Bobrow, left, and Mel Bostwick

Are Patent Owners Rolling the Dice With Arthrex?

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Micron Technology are trying to close the Arthrex window a month early, as I wrote in the National Law Journal on Monday.

If Micron prevails on its forfeiture argument, which is being supported by the PTO, it could have broad implications for patent owners who are expecting a new hearing at the PTAB.

To recap, the PTO has been arguing since last fall that even if PTAB judges were unconstitutionally appointed, only those few litigants who raised the issue before the PTAB during their IPRs should be entitled to new hearings. So far the Federal Circuit has rejected that argument, though we're still waiting to see if the court will reconsider it en banc.

Orrick partners Jared Bobrow and Mel Bostwick are now saying OK, but surely once the Federal Circuit issued Arthrex and put everyone on notice about the appointments clause, if a litigant at that point didn't ask the board for rehearing, the issue must be waived. This would seem to apply to any IPR decided in the 30 days prior to the Oct. 31 Arthrex ruling.

What I'm struck by is the apparently tiny number of litigants who have raised Arthrex to the board since the Federal Circuit issued its ruling—whether in motions, at oral argument or by request for rehearing. A lot of patent owners seem plenty confident that the appellate court has absolved them of having to preserve the issue under any circumstances—no matter what may come en banc or at the Supreme Court.

There is a school of thought that it doesn't hurt to just put the issue on the trial record. But based on one transcript I came across, it's not entirely painless.

Brad Pederson of QFO Labs raised the appointments clause issue at his Nov. 19 oral hearing in Parrot v. QFO Labs, a dispute over drone technology. "It's not clear whether those issues need to be addressed here at the Board, but for the record, we would reserve the right to appeal those issues if necessary," Pederson told the judges.

"Sorry. Did you raise that issue in any of your briefings?" Judge Meredith Petravick asked.

No, Pederson said, because briefing was complete before Arthrex came down. He tried to pivot to the merits of his argument, but Petravick kept steering him back to the appointments clause.

"Doesn't that run afoul of our rule to not raise the issues [for the first time] during oral argument?" she asked.

"Don't intend to argue it all, Your Honor," Pederson said. "I simply wanted to note it and –"

"So you don't expect us to answer that issue in our final written decision?" Petravick pressed. "We have a rule that says that if you don't put it in your briefing, you've waived that issue."

Pederson ultimately told the board it could strike his comment.

JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock

'Foundational' Nokia Smartphone Patent Revived

A smartphone camera patent that originated with Nokia in 2002 and has passed through a couple of assertion entities is back in play in the Northern District of California.

Ironworks Patents LLC and Global IP Law Group persuaded the Federal Circuit last week that U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam erred in construing Ironworks' 6,427,078 patent, on a "Device for personal communications, data collection and data processing, and a circuit card."

If that sounds as if it could cover a lot of smartphones and tablets, you're right. Nokia considers it "foundational" smartphone technology, and teamed up with Sony and MPEG LA in 2010 to enforce it and about 125 similar patents, first through an entity called MobileMedia Ideas LLC and now Ironworks.

According to defensive patent aggregator RPX Corp., Ironworks' campaign has notched settlements from Apple, Huawei, LG Electronics and TCL Communications in the last couple of years.

A lot of entities stand to profit from further monetization. According to RPX, Nokia, Sony, MobileMedia, MPEG LA, David Ruder of Ximota Intellectual Asset Finance, and Global IP Law Group and four of its partners hold stakes in the Ironworks litigation.

Ironworks describes the '078 as among the first patents to claim a tightly integrated multifunctional camera and telephone. Gilliam ruled last year that the phrase "camera unit" in the patent includes optics, a microprocessor, memory, a battery and an interface. The parties agreed that Samsung's accused products don't meet all of those limitations.

The Federal Circuit ruled Friday that "camera unit" as defined by the patent does not include battery and interface, which means Samsung could be back on the hook. The court did agree with Samsung that it does not infringe a separate patent on voice-controlled phone calls.

Global IP Law Group partner Alison Aubry Richards argued the appeal for Ironworks. Paul Hastings partner Allan Soobert argued for Samsung.

Section 101 Cert Petition on Line One

HP and Morgan Lewis couldn't do it. Cisco and WilmerHale couldn't either. So the odds are long, as Berkeley solo Andrew Dhuey and elderly inventor Morris Reese take the next shot at asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its patent eligibility jurisprudence. Reese v. Sprint Nextel is scheduled for Friday's Supreme Court conference.

Reese patented a method of sending a call-waiting tone signal to indicate that another call is coming from a phone number flagged as private. He's been litigating his patent against Sprint, Verizon and other telcos since 2013. The Federal Circuit ruled last year that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of sending and receiving information, and that "by the '150 patent's own terms, the claims do not recite any non-conventional equipment."

Dhuey is focusing on Step 2 of the Mayo-Alice framework, arguing that the use of previously known technology should be addressed under Section 102 and 103, not 101. It's an argument the solicitor general made in December when it encouraged the court to rethink patent eligibility.

The carriers "have never sought summary judgment against Petitioner on Sections 102 or 103 grounds, even though it would have been advantageous for them to do so," Dhuey wrote in a Feb. 21 filing. The carriers argue that the Federal Circuit's decision represents "consistent application of this Court's uniform precedent on abstractness and that nonprecedential decision certainly does not muddy the waters of patent eligibility."

That's all from Skilled in the Art today. I'll see you all again on Friday.