Abel v. Vidal (24-2057): Data Privacy Patent Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Inventor Kenton Abel brought a Federal Circuit appeal against USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal concerning patent application US17/110240, directed to data privacy across online and physical environments. The proceeding was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after just 99 days, with each side bearing their own costs.
Inventor’s Federal Circuit challenge to USPTO ends swiftly by mutual agreement
Kenton Abel, represented by Vista IP Law Group LLP, filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 9 July 2024. The appeal named Katherine K. Vidal, then Director of the USPTO, as respondent. The underlying dispute concerned patent application US17/110240 — published as US20210117574A1 — which covers data privacy protection methodologies spanning both online and physical world environments.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the proceeding on 16 October 2024 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which governs voluntary dismissals at the appellate level. The court’s order records that the parties ‘having so agreed’ consented to dismissal, with each side bearing its own costs. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal, and the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was entered with or without prejudice.
At 99 days from filing to closure, the case resolved significantly faster than the typical Federal Circuit appeal timeline, suggesting the parties reached an accommodation — or Abel elected not to pursue the appeal further — early in the briefing schedule. The absence of any cost award is consistent with a negotiated exit. What prompted the withdrawal, and whether the underlying patent application remains pending or was abandoned, is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 99 days
99 days — resolved well below the typical Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle of 12–18 months
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): party-agreed appellate dismissal
Rule 42(b) allows an appellant to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement with opposing counsel. The Federal Circuit’s order notes both parties ‘having so agreed,’ confirming this was a consensual exit rather than a court-directed termination. No merits ruling was issued — the court made no findings on the patentability or validity of the underlying application.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice status
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Abel from re-filing the same claim; ‘without prejudice’ preserves that right. The court order simply records ‘voluntary dismissal’ without specifying either. Practitioners should not assume either outcome from the face of this order. Whether any related USPTO prosecution track remains open would require separate investigation of the application’s file history.
Prejudice status unconfirmedAbel withdraws appeal — underlying application status uncertain
By agreeing to dismissal, Abel foregoes any appellate ruling in his favour at this stage. The Federal Circuit will not review the USPTO’s underlying decision on the merits. Whether Abel intends to pursue continuation applications, file a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, or accept the agency’s outcome is not apparent from the public docket. The 99-day timeline suggests the decision to withdraw was made early.
No appellate relief obtainedAgency decision stands unchallenged — for now
With the appeal dismissed, the USPTO’s underlying determination on application US17/110240 remains in effect without appellate scrutiny. The agency incurs no precedential risk from this proceeding. Four USPTO counsel were entered for Vidal, which is consistent with standard agency representation; the symmetric cost ruling suggests no party sought to leverage a cost-shifting outcome.
USPTO position preservedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | KENTON ABEL | Individual | Individual inventor appealing USPTO rejection — holder of application US17/110240Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Individual | Katherine K. Vidal, Director of the USPTO, defending agency’s patent prosecution decisionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gary D. Lueck | Attorney | Counsel for KENTON ABELSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vista IP Law Group LLP | Law Firm | Representing KENTON ABELSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy J. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maitrang Duc Dang | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah E. Craven | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is deliberately minimal: it records mutual agreement, invokes Rule 42(b), and allocates costs symmetrically. The absence of any substantive language means the order creates no precedent and resolves no legal question about the patentability of data privacy claims spanning online and physical environments. From an appellate standards perspective, no standard of review was applied — the court never reached the merits of any USPTO rejection. Both parties effectively exit without a win or loss on the record.
US17/110240 — Data Privacy in Online and Physical World Environments
Application US17/110240, published as US20210117574A1, was filed by Kenton Abel and is directed to data privacy methodologies that operate across both digital and physical environments. This dual-domain scope is technically ambitious — seeking to protect methods that address privacy risks in interconnected settings where online data collection intersects with physical-world activity. The application’s broad framing places it squarely in the contested terrain of Section 101 patent-eligibility doctrine.
Data privacy patents that span online and physical environments are strategically significant for technology companies building cross-channel consumer platforms, IoT systems, and location-aware services. However, this claim architecture also faces heightened USPTO scrutiny under the Alice/Mayo framework, which has repeatedly narrowed software and data-processing claims. The commercial value of a granted patent in this space would be considerable — making the prosecution outcome consequential for any company operating in privacy-sensitive digital-physical product categories.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US17/110240?
Any technology team developing products that collect, process, or anonymise user data across online platforms and physical environments — including IoT devices, retail analytics, location services, and cross-channel identity systems — should assess their exposure to the claim scope of US17/110240. Although this application’s prosecution history includes a Federal Circuit appeal, its current status requires direct verification. An unresolved or allowed application can still generate enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the published claim language of US20210117574A1 against your product architecture, flag continuation applications in the same family, and surface related data privacy patents with overlapping scope. For teams operating in privacy-sensitive digital-physical product categories, proactive FTO analysis now is considerably less expensive than a freedom-to-operate gap discovered post-launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20210117574A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit data privacy patent prosecution appeals
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving data privacy and subject-matter eligibility rejections — cases raising comparable Section 101 issues in online and physical environment contexts.
What this case signals for the data privacy patent prosecution landscape
Early voluntary dismissals at the Federal Circuit in prosecution appeals often reflect broader strategic calculations worth monitoring.
Prosecution appeals that settle early rarely signal applicant weakness alone
A 99-day Federal Circuit dismissal in an applicant-vs-USPTO appeal is consistent with a range of outcomes: negotiated allowance, continuation strategy, or commercial pivot. IP teams tracking data privacy prosecution trends should not interpret voluntary dismissal as confirmation that the underlying claims are unpatentable — the merits were never tested.
Data privacy patents face a high USPTO bar — Federal Circuit appeals are a known pathway
Applications covering data privacy in online and physical environments frequently encounter Section 101 subject-matter eligibility rejections. Appealing to the Federal Circuit is a recognised escalation route, but the cost-benefit calculation shifts once briefing timelines and USPTO opposition resources become clear. This case’s rapid resolution is consistent with that dynamic.
ABEL v Katherine — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal filed by inventor Kenton Abel against USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal was voluntarily dismissed on 16 October 2024 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), just 99 days after filing. The case concerned patent application US17/110240 covering data privacy in online and physical environments. No merits ruling was issued and each party bore its own costs.
US17/110240, published as US20210117574A1, covers methods for protecting data privacy across online and physical world environments. The dual-domain scope targets privacy risks where digital data collection intersects with physical-world activity — a technically and legally complex area frequently subject to USPTO Section 101 subject-matter eligibility scrutiny.
Not necessarily. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) means the appeal was withdrawn by agreement — no appellate court ruled on the merits of any USPTO rejection. The underlying application’s status must be verified independently through USPTO records. Abel may have pursued continuation applications, a § 145 civil action, or accepted the agency’s outcome for unrelated strategic reasons.
A symmetric cost allocation means neither party recovers attorney fees or filing costs from the other. In Federal Circuit appeals, this is the standard outcome for consensual dismissals and does not indicate which party held the stronger legal position. It is consistent with a negotiated exit or an appellant’s unilateral decision to withdraw without terms.
The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, so the precise options depend on that unresolved question. Generally, options may include filing continuation applications at the USPTO, pursuing a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in a district court (if without prejudice), or filing new claims on related subject matter. Legal counsel should review the application’s complete file history to assess available paths.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.