N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________

In re : ROKU, INC., Petitioner

______________________

2022

- 116
, 2022

- 117, 2022

- 118

______________________
On Petition s for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in No s

. IPR2021

- 00263, IPR2021

- 00264, and IPR2021

- 00299.

------------------------------------------------- --
ROKU, INC., Appellant

v.

UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC., Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1216, 2022

- 1217, 2022

- 1218

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office , Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021

- 00263, IPR2021

- 00264, and IPR2021

- 00299.

______________________
ON PETITION S Case: 22-116 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2022IN RE : ROKU , INC

. 2

______________________
Before D YK , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. D YK , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R
Roku, Inc. directly appeal s the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ’s decisions declining institution of inter partes review of two patents owned by Universal Electronics, Inc

. In reaching that determination, the Board relied on the advanced stage of co

- pending parallel proceeding s before the International Trade Commission (ITC) involving the same patents and overlapping invalidity arguments . Roku has also filed related petitions for writ s of mandamus seeking review of th ose same non

- institution decisions

. We reaffirmed in Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. , 989 F.3d 1375, 1378

– 79 (Fed. Cir. 2021) that the Board’s discretionary decision to decline institution of inter partes review, including decisions based on the Board’s multi

- factor standard for evaluating whether to institute in view of parallel civil litigation , is “final and nonappealable

. ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) )

. We also made clear that, given the fact that the decision to institute inter partes review is committed to the discretion of the agency, “ there is no reviewability of the Director ’ s exercise of his discretion to deny institution [by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus] except for colorable constitutional claims .” Id. at 1382. Roku has not provided a sufficient justification f or distinguishing Mylan here. Roku argues that the ITC , unlike a district court

, cannot issue a decision on patent validity with preclusive effect in other forums , but that does not mean the Board’s non

- institution decisions are any less “final and nonapp ealable” under section 314(d)

. Regardless of parallel proceedings, “ no statute confers jurisdiction over appeals from decisions denying institution ,” and “[w] ithout Case: 22-116 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2022IN RE : ROKU , INC

. 3

such a statute, we lack jurisdiction over those appeals .” Id. at 1379 (citation omitted). And Roku has not presented a colorable constitutional claim. As in Mylan , Roku ’s petitions merely challen ge the Board’s exercise of discretion not to institute review proceedings. Pet. 3

– 4. Under such circumstances, w e mus t dismiss Roku’s direct appeals

, and

we deny its requests for mandamus relief. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Appeal Nos. 2022

- 1216,

- 1217,

- 1218 are dismissed. (2) The mandamus petitions are denied. (3) Costs in Appeal Nos. 2022

- 1216,

- 1217,

- 1218 to Universal Electronics, Inc.

May 11
, 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-116 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2022