Federal Circuit reverses course, ruling time-bar defense to inter partes review is appealable

by Dentons
Contact

Dentons

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Court), sitting en banc, ruled on Monday, January 8, 2018, that a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as to whether a petition for inter partes review (IPR) is time-barred under 35 USC Section 315(b)i is subject to judicial review.ii In doing so, the full Court overruled a prior decision by a three-judge Federal Circuit panel that such determinations could not be appealed.iii

Patent owner Wi-Fi One LLC had argued before the PTAB that Broadcom Corp.’s IPR petitions were time-barred under 35 USC Section 315(b) because Broadcom’s privies were served with an infringement complaint more than one year before Broadcom filed its petitions. The PTAB, however, denied Wi-Fi One's request for discovery concerning privity, instituted Broadcom's requested IPRs and, ultimately, found no violation of the time bar. In its final written decision, the PTAB maintained that Wi-Fi One had not established that the prior defendants were in privity with Broadcom and thus the petitions were not time-barred. Wi-Fi One appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Court affirmed the PTAB, citing a previous ruling by the Federal Circuit in Achates which held that time-bar determinations under section 315(b) are nonappealable. 

WiFi One petitioned for a rehearing en banc to determine whether Achates should be overruled and the Patent Office’s section 315(b) time-bar determinations are subject to judicial review. The full Court granted Wi-Fi One’s petition. The resulting nine-judge majority opinion framed the issue as whether the “strong presumption” favoring judicial review of administrative actions was overcome by a “clear and convincing indication” that Congress intended to prohibit review, as set forth in the statutory language, legislative history or statutory scheme of the America Invents Act (AIA). Finding no “clear and convincing indication” of such intent, the majority ruled in favor of judicial review of time-bar determinations.

The statutory provision in question, 35 USC Section 314, is reproduced below (emphasis added):

(a) Threshold. — The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

(b) Timing. — The Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed under section 311 within 3 months after—

(1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under section 313; or

(2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date on which such response may be filed.

(c) Notice. — The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent owner, in writing, of the Director’s determination under subsection (a), and shall make such notice available to the public as soon as is practicable. Such notice shall include the date on which the review shall commence.

(d) No Appeal. — The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.

The majority focused heavily on the statutory language “under this section” of section 314(d). The majority found that this “no appeal” provision was limited to the type of threshold determinations on the merits specified by section 314(a), and thus was not applicable to time-bar determinations made under section 315(b).iv

The majority also considered the AIA's overall statutory scheme, and found support for its interpretation thereof in the Supreme Court’s analysis of section 314(d) in the Cuozzo decision.v The majority, citing Cuozzo, argued that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 314(d) barred appeal of the USPTO director’s determinations regarding the sufficiency of information presented in the petitionvi because those decisions are “closely related to the preliminary patentability determination or the exercise of discretion not to institute under § 314(a).”vii Time-bar decisions made under section 315, in contrast, are “fundamentally different” from section 314 determinations because they are not closely tied to the reasonable likelihood of demonstrating unpatentability of at least one claim. Thus, time-bar decisions are not subject to the “no appeal” provision of section 314(d), the Court reasoned.viii

The majority explicitly limited its holding to the appealability of time-bar determinations pursuant to section 315(b), and refused to rule whether all disputes arising from sections 311–14 are final and nonappealable. Thus, future appeals further probing the scope of appealability of AIA-trial institution decisions seem likely.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Kathleen O’Malley argued that the section 314(d) bar on appellate review is limited to the USPTO's assessment of the substantive adequacy of the petition. Because section 315(b)’s time bar is not related to this determination, the “no appeal” provision is inapplicable, in her opinion.ix

Four Federal Circuit judges joined in a dissenting opinion. The dissent criticized the majority for an overly narrow interpretation of both the statutory provisions and the Cuozzo decision. In the dissent’s view, the phrase “under this section” in section 314(d) simply refers to the fact that inter partes review is instituted pursuant to section 314, and is not intended to limit the applicability of the broadly worded ban on appeals in section 314(d).x Furthermore, the dissent read Cuozzo to hold that determinations made under a “different” section—section 312(a)(3)—covered by the ban on appeals, and concluded that section 314(d) is not limited to the “merits of the petition” determinations as alleged by the majority.

This case follows on the heels of the recently decided Aqua Products decision, where the Federal Circuit, en banc, effectively shifted the burden of proof from the patent owner to the petitioner to demonstrate the patentability of amended claims presented during IPR. The Wi-Fi decision, like Aqua Products, is the latest in a number of legal developments that can be characterized as more favorable to patent owners in AIA trials before the PTAB.

Dentons is prepared to defend its clients’ interests before the PTAB in light of these and other important developments.


i 35 U.S.C. § 315(d): “An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.  The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”

ii Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp., appeal no. 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(en banc).

iii Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 803 F.3d 652, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

iv Wi-Fi One, slip op., at 15-17.

vCuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016).

vi 35 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(3): “the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . ..”

vii Wi-Fi One, slip op., at 18 (citing,136 S. Ct. at 2142).

viii Id., at 19.

ix Id., O’Malley, concurring at p. 4.

x Id., dissent at p. 8.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dentons | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dentons
Contact
more
less

Dentons on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.