The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in *Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corporation*, concluding a patent dispute between two prominent aerial imaging technology companies.
The Federal Circuit issued a brief per curiam judgment on Feb. 3 in Case No. 2024-1763, affirming the PTAB's decision in inter partes review proceeding IPR2022-00735. The court designated the ruling as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases.
Nearmap US, Inc. served as the appellant in the case, challenging a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Pictometry International Corporation was the appellee, having prevailed in the underlying PTAB proceeding. The Federal Circuit's three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Dyk, Schall, and Stark issued the unanimous decision.
The appeal stemmed from an inter partes review proceeding that Nearmap initiated in 2022. Inter partes review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent and Trademark Office to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on grounds that could be raised under sections 102 or 103 of the Patent Act, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
Both companies operate in the competitive aerial imaging and mapping technology sector. Nearmap specializes in high-resolution aerial imagery and location data, while Pictometry International focuses on aerial imaging systems and oblique imagery technology. Patent disputes are common in this technology-intensive industry as companies seek to protect their intellectual property investments and maintain competitive advantages.
The Federal Circuit's judgment was issued under Federal Circuit Rule 36, which allows the court to enter judgment without a written opinion when the result is determined by settled law, the record does not present a new issue whose resolution will materially advance the development of the law, and material facts are not in dispute. This procedural mechanism enables the court to efficiently handle appeals that do not require extensive analysis or precedential guidance.
Nearmap was represented by a substantial legal team from multiple firms. Lauren Ann Degnan of Fish & Richardson PC in Washington, D.C., argued for the appellant. The legal team also included Benjamin Joseph Christoff, Christopher Dryer, and Walter Karl Renner from Fish & Richardson, along with J. Steven Baughman and Megan Freeland Raymond from Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP in Washington, and Michael F. Milea from New York.
Pictometry was represented by Laura Vu of Haynes and Boone, LLP in San Francisco, who argued for the appellee. The defense team included Debra Janece McComas from Dallas, Gregory P. Webb from Plano, and Jonathan R. Bowser, Adam Lloyd Erickson, and Angela M. Oliver from Washington, D.C.
The use of Rule 36 suggests the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the PTAB's decision and determined the legal issues were sufficiently settled that a detailed written opinion would not advance patent law jurisprudence. This procedural approach is increasingly common at the Federal Circuit, particularly in cases involving routine patent validity challenges.
While the specific patents and claims at issue are not detailed in the available court documents, the case represents the ongoing competition between aerial imaging companies to secure and defend patent portfolios covering their respective technologies. These companies often engage in patent litigation as they compete for market share in industries serving government agencies, real estate companies, insurance firms, and other clients requiring aerial imagery services.
The affirmance means the PTAB's original decision in the inter partes review remains intact. Depending on the nature of that decision, it could have involved either invalidating patent claims challenged by Nearmap or upholding the validity of Pictometry's patent rights.
For Nearmap, the adverse Federal Circuit ruling represents a setback in what appears to have been a multi-year effort to challenge Pictometry's patent position. The company must now operate within the constraints of the PTAB's original determination, which the Federal Circuit has now validated.
For Pictometry, the affirmance provides vindication of its position in the underlying PTAB proceeding and potentially strengthens its patent portfolio against future challenges. The company can now rely on both the PTAB decision and Federal Circuit affirmance when asserting its patent rights or defending against invalidity challenges.
The case illustrates the important role of inter partes review proceedings in resolving patent disputes outside of traditional federal court litigation. Since these proceedings began in 2013, they have become a preferred mechanism for challenging patent validity due to their lower costs and faster resolution compared to district court litigation.
Neither party has immediate recourse from the Federal Circuit's decision, as the court's jurisdiction over appeals from PTAB decisions is generally final, subject only to potential Supreme Court review, which is rarely granted in patent cases.