N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ NESTLE PURINA PETCAR E COMPANY , Appellant

v. OIL

- DRI CORPORATION OF AMERICA , Appellee

______________________ 201 7- 1744

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR 2015

- 00737

.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________ Before D YK , O’M ALLEY , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R This case is an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted review as to all challenged claims of Appellee Oil

- Dri Corporation of America’s (“Oil

Dri’s”) animal litter patent , but only as to one of the fiveNESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO

. v. OIL

- DRI CORP

. OF AMERICA 2

grounds of un patent ability set forth in Appellant Nestl é Purina Petcare Company ’s (“Nestl é ’s ”) IPR petition. Nestl é appeals the Board’s final written decision uphol ding all instituted claims. See Nestl é Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil

- Dri Corp. of Am. , IPR2015

- 00737, Paper No. 37 , 2016 WL 4375267 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2016). W hile briefing on appeal was pending, Nestl é filed a motion for remand to the Board based on documents that Oil

- Dri produced to Nestl é in the parallel district court litigation

. See Appellant Mot. Remand, ECF No. 40

. According to Nestl é , these documents refute certain arguments that Oil

- Dri made to the Board during the IPR proceeding regarding the scope of the prior art at issue

. Nestl é also asserts that the documents establish that Oil

Dri committed fraud against the Board by making mat erial misrepresentations about the prior art, and that remand is required for the Board to reconsider its instit ution decision and/or final written decision in view of the documents , as well as to consider whether to impose
san ction s. Although Oil

- Dri initially oppos ed the motion, it has since withdrawn its objection to remand in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu , 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), and our order in Polaris Industries Inc. v. Arctic Cat, In c. , No. 2017

- 1870,

- 1871, 2018 WL 2435544 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2018)

. See Appellee Rule 28(j) Letter, ECF No. 80. In Polaris , we held that SAS constitutes an intervening change in the law , and that a party may seek a remand to address noninstituted grounds. See Polaris , 2018 WL 2435544, at *1

– 2. Oil

- Dri now asserts that remand is appropriate for the Board to consider all grounds in Nestl é ’s IPR petition, consistent with SAS and Polaris , a nd contends that , because a remand would likely involve further development of the record , the Board should also be permitted to consider the documents that Nestl é contends necessitated remand in the first place in connection with the grounds as to whichNESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO

. v. OIL

- DRI CORP

. OF AM ERICA 3

t he IPR was originally instituted . Oil

- Dri dispute s , however, Nestl é ’s assertions of fraud , and objects to Nestl é ’s request for the Board to consider sanction s
. Nestlé , for its part, agrees that remand is appropriate under SAS and Polaris , but maintains that the Board should also be permitted to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. See Appellant Rule 28(j) Letter, ECF No. 81. At oral argument, the parties confirmed that there is little daylight between their respective positions. See Oral Arg. at 1: 35

– 38 , Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil

- Dri Corp. of Am. (No. 2017

- 1744 ), available at http://oralarguments. cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017

- 1744.mp3 (“There is agreement that the case should be remanded here.”); id. at 10: 20

– 28 (“ [W]ith respe ct to the issue of remand, t he differences here are fairly minor.”). B oth parties agree that remand is appropriate to consider all petitioned grounds of unpatentability and the newly discovered evidence. They disagree, however, on two points. First, as described above, the parties dispute whether the Board should be instructed to consider the propriety of fraud and sanctions ; Nestlé argues it should, while Oil

- Dri argues it should not

. See id. at 3:30

– 55, 10:45

– 11:10, 12:40

– 55. Second, they dispute whether and how we should resolve one of Nestl é ’s argument s related to the prior art’s discl osure of particle size, which Nestl é alleges the Board failed to address in its final written decision

. Nestlé urges us to address th e argument in the first instan ce on appeal and to “provide some guidance to the Board on the issue” in our remand decision. See id. at 7:20

– 45, 8:55

– 10:00, 17:00

– 18:15. Oil

- Dri asserts that the argument is waived , and , in any event, is without merit. See id. at 14:00

– 16:35

. We agree with the parties that remand is necessary and appropriate in light of SAS and Polaris

. On remand, the Board may consider Nestlé’s allegations of fraud andNESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO

. v. OIL

- DRI CORP

. OF AMERICA 4

the propriety of sanctions, but we decline to require the Board to do so

. We also decline to address Nestl é ’s part icle size argument for the first time on appeal . We leave it to the Board to consider that argument to the extent it was properly presented in Nestl é ’s IPR petition. Accordingly, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The parties’ joint request for remand pursuant to SAS is granted. On remand, the Board shall take appropriate action consistent wi th SAS

. (2) Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the Board may consider the documents relevant to Nestlé’s original motion for remand that the parties su bmitted to this court. 1 We do not, however, require the Board to address the issues of fraud or san ctions in connection with those documents

. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. (4) Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 41, this o rder shall constitute the mandate.

F OR THE C OURT June 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

1 Because the parties agree that remand under SAS is appropriate and that the Board should be permitted to consider the documents , Nestlé’s original motion for remand is denied as moot.