Wang v. Vidal (22-1518): Federal Circuit Affirms Reverse Bid Auction Patent Unpatentable
Kevin Sunlin Wang challenged the USPTO’s rejection of his reverse sealed bid auction patent application (US15/717594) before the Federal Circuit. The court affirmed the unpatentability ruling in September 2024, ending a 910-day appeal. The decision leaves Wang’s auction system technology without patent protection.
Federal Circuit closes door on reverse auction patent after USPTO rejection
Kevin Sunlin Wang filed appeal No. 22-1518 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 9 March 2022, challenging the USPTO’s determination that his patent application US15/717594 — covering a system and method for reverse sealed bid auctions — was unpatentable. The defendants, USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal and Acting Director Andrew Hirshfeld, defended the agency’s patentability assessment. The case falls squarely within the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over appeals from USPTO patent examination decisions.
On 4 September 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a terse but definitive order: ‘AFFIRMED.’ This single-word disposition confirms that the appellate panel found no reversible error in the USPTO’s underlying unpatentability determination. For Wang, affirmance means the application US15/717594 cannot proceed to grant in its challenged form. The USPTO’s rejection — grounded in a patentability analysis — is now judicially endorsed at the appellate level.
The 910-day duration from filing to affirmance is notable for a Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the matter may have involved substantive briefing rather than a summary disposition, though the public record does not disclose oral argument details or the precise legal grounds of rejection. What drove the unpatentability finding — whether § 101 subject-matter eligibility, § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, or another basis — is not specified in the available termination data, leaving practitioners to consult the full opinion for doctrinal granularity.
Filing to Unpatentable in 910 days
910-day appeal — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the USPTO rejection survives appellate scrutiny
When the Federal Circuit issues an ‘AFFIRMED’ judgment, it has reviewed the record and found no reversible legal error in the decision below. Here, the USPTO’s unpatentability determination was subjected to appellate review and upheld in full. The lower agency decision carries the same force as before, now reinforced by Federal Circuit endorsement. Wang exhausted his appellate avenue at this level; the rejection stands as a matter of law.
No reversible error foundWang’s auction patent application cannot proceed to grant as challenged
Affirmance by the Federal Circuit means application US15/717594 remains unpatentable as determined by the USPTO. Wang cannot rely on this application in its current form to secure exclusive rights over the reverse sealed bid auction system and method. Unless continuation or divisional strategies were pursued in parallel — which the public record does not confirm — the commercial and licensing value of this particular application is extinguished.
Application remains unpatentableUSPTO’s patentability standards validated at the Federal Circuit level
For the USPTO and its directors, affirmance validates the agency’s examination and rejection of Wang’s application. The Federal Circuit declined to disturb the unpatentability finding, reinforcing the USPTO’s authority to reject applications on the applicable statutory grounds. Wang’s further appellate options at this stage are limited to a petition for en banc rehearing or a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court — both high-bar mechanisms rarely granted.
USPTO rejection judicially endorsedReverse auction technology space retains freedom to operate against this application
With affirmance of unpatentability, companies operating in the reverse sealed bid auction technology space — including procurement platforms, e-sourcing providers, and digital marketplace operators — face no enforcement risk from US15/717594. The decision is consistent with the broader Federal Circuit trend of scrutinising software-implemented business method patents under § 101 and related doctrines, though the specific rejection basis here is not publicly confirmed.
FTO strengthened for auction techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | KEVIN SUNLIN WANG | Individual | Patent applicant and appellant — holder of application US15/717594 for reverse sealed bid auctionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Individual | USPTO Director and Acting Director — federal officers defending agency’s unpatentability determinationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Andrew Hirshfeld | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Aker | Attorney | Counsel for KEVIN SUNLIN WANGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, LLP | Law Firm | Representing KEVIN SUNLIN WANGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | 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 one-word disposition — ‘AFFIRMED’ — carries full precedential weight as to the result, though its brevity suggests the panel may have issued a Rule 36 judgment without written opinion, a practice the Federal Circuit employs when it finds the lower decision correct and requiring no additional legal elaboration. For Wang, this forecloses the primary appellate avenue. The USPTO’s unpatentability determination, whatever its statutory basis, now rests on judicially affirmed ground. The absence of a written opinion limits the ruling’s value as precedent on the specific rejection doctrine applied.
US15/717594 — System and Method for Reverse Sealed Bid Auctions
US Application 15/717594 (published as US20180018732A1) claims a system and method for reverse sealed bid auctions — a procurement mechanism in which sellers submit confidential bids to supply goods or services, and the lowest qualifying bid wins. The application was filed in the USPTO and prosecuted through examination before being rejected on patentability grounds. The reverse auction model sits at the intersection of e-commerce platform architecture and financial transaction methodology, a category that has faced persistent § 101 subject-matter eligibility challenges since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
Reverse sealed bid auction technology underpins a significant segment of procurement software, B2B marketplace platforms, and government contracting systems. Patent protection in this space, if granted, could create leverage over operators of digital sourcing platforms and supply-chain automation tools. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes this particular application from the enforcement landscape, but the underlying commercial problem — efficient price discovery in competitive procurement — remains the subject of active innovation and parallel patent filings by larger platform operators.
Should your procurement platform run an FTO against US15/717594?
Product teams and in-house counsel at companies operating reverse auction platforms, e-sourcing tools, or sealed-bid procurement systems should note that US15/717594 has been affirmed unpatentable by the Federal Circuit. This application no longer poses a direct infringement risk. However, FTO clearance should extend beyond this single application: related continuation filings, divisional applications, or separately granted patents in the Wang portfolio may cover adjacent claim scope that was not before the Federal Circuit in this appeal.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map the full Wang patent family, identify any surviving related applications, and benchmark claim language against your product architecture. Run a family-level FTO search on US15/717594 to confirm the scope of cleared space and flag any pending claims that could be asserted against reverse auction or sealed-bid procurement implementations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20180018732A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: auction method and business method patents
Cases at the Federal Circuit involving USPTO patentability rejections of software-implemented auction and marketplace methods — analysed by claim type and § 101 outcome.
What Wang v. Vidal signals for auction-method patent strategy
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance reinforces the difficulty of securing patent protection for software-implemented auction business methods before the USPTO.
Auction method patents face heightened scrutiny at the Federal Circuit
Wang v. Vidal is consistent with a pattern of Federal Circuit affirmances of USPTO rejections in software-implemented business method cases. Applicants pursuing reverse auction, procurement, or dynamic pricing system patents should expect rigorous examination and anticipate the need for claim strategies that emphasise concrete technical improvements over abstract commercial methods.
Continuation strategy is critical before exhausting appeal options
Once the Federal Circuit affirms a USPTO unpatentability finding, the application at issue cannot be resurrected through that appeal. Applicants should file continuation or continuation-in-part applications with refined claims before final disposition to preserve prosecution options. The 910-day appeal window is a significant period during which parallel prosecution paths could have been developed.
WANG v Katherine — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s unpatentability determination against Kevin Sunlin Wang’s patent application US15/717594, covering a system and method for reverse sealed bid auctions. The court issued an ‘AFFIRMED’ judgment on 4 September 2024, ending the 910-day appeal. The unpatentability finding stands and the application cannot proceed to grant in its challenged form.
The patent at issue was US Application No. 15/717594, published as US20180018732A1. It claims a system and method for reverse sealed bid auctions — a procurement mechanism in which competing sellers submit confidential bids and the lowest qualifying bid is selected. The application was rejected by the USPTO on unpatentability grounds, and that rejection was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
The affirmance of unpatentability means US15/717594 cannot be enforced against any party. Companies operating reverse sealed bid auction platforms, e-sourcing systems, or sealed-bid procurement tools face no enforcement risk from this specific application. However, practitioners should check for related continuation or divisional applications in the Wang portfolio that may have survived examination with different claim scope.
The available case record shows only the terse disposition ‘AFFIRMED’ without a detailed written opinion in the public data. This is consistent with a Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment, which the court issues when it finds the decision below correct and no additional written elaboration is warranted. The absence of a written opinion limits the ruling’s direct precedential value on the specific rejection doctrine applied.
Kevin Sunlin Wang was represented by attorney David Aker of Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, LLP. The USPTO defendants — Director Katherine K. Vidal and Acting Director Andrew Hirshfeld — were represented by Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed. No separate defendant law firm is recorded in the public docket for the government side.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.