On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal, using the direct intervention powers granted to her by U.S. v. Arthrex, vacated the board’s denial of institution to revisit how the board read a 2011 patent owned by Ouster

Ouster claimed to have developed a novel high-resolution LiDAR solution to create camera like images using 36 detectors. However, Ouster asserted that U.S. Pat. No. 11,422,236 (“Hall”) used the number “32” instead of “36” in the spec when describing the number of sensors used. Due to this discrepancy, the board concluded that Hesai “did not meet its burden to show that the 36 dark red circles … were detectors” and denied any further proceedings.

Director Vidal disagreed, noting that the discrepancy between the number of sensors in the specification “appears on its face to be a typographical error in the Hall specification.“ Thus, Director Vidal vacated the institution decision and remanded the IPR to the PTAB for further proceedings.

Takeaway: Director Vidal’s Arthrex powers extend to the reading of a specification, and typographical errors are within her discretion.