United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1759

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-

00826.

______________________ 

Decided: May 13, 2022

______________________ 

JOSHUA NATHANIEL MITCHELL, King & Spalding LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ; RUSSELL BLYTHE, HOLMES J.

HAWKINS, III, Atlanta, GA. 

 WAYNE D. PORTER, JR., Law Offices of Wayne D. Porter, 

Jr., Brecksville, OH, argued for appellee. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL. 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2022
2 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

This case from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board returns to us for a third time. In its final written decision, the Board, in the underlying inter partes 

review proceeding, rejected patent owner Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.’s argument that petitioner Atlanta Gas 

Light Company was time barred from petitioning for inter 

partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). It then determined 

that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the 

prior art. Bennett appealed. In that first appeal, we disagreed with the Board’s time-bar determination, holding 

that Atlanta Gas should have been barred; vacated the 

Board’s unpatentability determination; and remanded 

with directions to dismiss the IPR and to further consider 

a sanctions order that the Board had not yet finalized. 

Before the Board acted on our mandate, however, the 

Supreme Court held that time-bar determinations were 

unreviewable in Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, 

LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), and vacated our decision overruling the Board’s time-bar determination. On remand 

from the Supreme Court, we affirmed the Board’s unpatentability determination on the merits (while saying

nothing about the time bar) and again remanded for the 

Board to reconsider and finalize its order regarding sanctions. 

On remand from this court, the Board terminated the 

proceeding due in part to its reconsideration of its decision 

on the time bar. Atlanta Gas appeals. We conclude that 

we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to vacate

its institution decision, a decision it made based in part on 

its evaluation of the time bar and changed Patent and 

Trademark Office policy. Accordingly, we dismiss Atlanta 

Gas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 3

BACKGROUND

Bennett is the assignee of the patent-at-issue—U.S. 

Patent No. 5,810,029. The ’029 patent is directed to an 

anti-icing device for a gas pressure regulator. Bennett 

sued Atlanta Gas, a distributor of natural gas in Georgia, 

for infringement of the ’029 patent. J.A. 628–30. Atlanta 

Gas was served with the complaint on July 18, 2012. Id.; 

see also J.A. 2645. Ultimately, that litigation was dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

J.A. 295.

On July 18, 2013, exactly one year after Bennett served 

Atlanta Gas with the complaint, Atlanta Gas filed an IPR

petition requesting review of the ’029 patent. J.A. 2645. 

That IPR was instituted and litigated through oral hearing, awaiting only the final written decision from the 

Board. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. 

Guards, Inc., No. IPR2013-00453 (P.T.A.B.). Before a final 

written decision was issued, however, the Board vacated 

its institution decision and terminated the IPR because Atlanta Gas failed to list all real parties-in-interest (RPIs) in 

its petition, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). 

J.A. 2644–60. Specifically, the Board found that Atlanta 

Gas failed to list its parent company, AGL Resources 

(AGLR). Because the Board found AGLR to be “so intertwined” with Atlanta Gas that it should have been listed as 

an RPI, but it was not, the Board terminated the proceeding without reaching a final written decision on the merits. 

J.A. 2654. Atlanta Gas requested rehearing of that decision but was denied. J.A. 2666–83; J.A. 2684–93. That decision was not appealed.

After the termination of its first IPR, Atlanta Gas filed

another IPR petition on February 27, 2015, challenging the 

’029 patent claims on substantially the same unpatentability grounds. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. 

Guards, Inc., No. IPR2015-00826 (P.T.A.B.). This time, the 

petition described AGLR as “in privity” with Atlanta Gas 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 05/13/2022
4 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

and, “out of an abundance of caution,” Atlanta Gas identified AGLR as an RPI. J.A. 63. This second IPR proceeding 

is the basis of the current appeal. 

The Board instituted the IPR and issued a final written 

decision in August 2016. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett 

Regul. Guards, Inc., No. IPR2015-00826, 2016 WL 8969209 

(P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016). Throughout the proceeding, Bennett argued that the petition was time barred under 

35 U.S.C. § 315(b), but the Board ultimately disagreed. Because the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, the Board treated the district court complaint as if it 

had never been filed. Id. at *5–6. This was consistent with 

the Patent and Trademark Office’s understanding of

§ 315(b)’s time bar at that time. On the merits, the Board 

concluded that the claims at issue were unpatentable. Id.

at *13–18. 

After the final written decision issued, Bennett learned 

of a corporate merger involving Atlanta Gas’s parent company, AGLR, that had not been disclosed to the Board. The 

merger occurred after the oral hearing but before the 

Board’s final written decision. J.A. 14–15. Bennett raised 

this issue to the Board on a conference call, after which one 

of the administrative patent judges on the panel recused 

himself. J.A. 15. The panel ordered Atlanta Gas to file an 

updated mandatory notice listing all RPIs. Atlanta Gas 

complied and, as it had done with AGLR in its IPR petition, 

listed the new entities as being “in privity” with Atlanta 

Gas and identified them as RPIs “out of an abundance of 

caution.” J.A. 712.

Bennett then moved for sanctions, asking the Board to 

terminate the proceeding and award “compensatory expenses and attorney fees.” J.A. 723. The Board agreed that 

sanctions were warranted for Atlanta Gas’s failure to 

timely update its RPIs, but it granted only monetary sanctions—costs and fees incurred between the final written decision and the sanctions decision. J.A. 17–19. Thereafter, 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 5

Bennett filed a motion detailing its costs and fees for that 

specified period, and Atlanta Gas filed an opposition. 

Around the same time, both parties appealed to our court. 

The Board did not finalize its sanctions decision before the 

appeal.

In the first appeal before this court, we disagreed with 

the Board’s interpretation of § 315(b), which assumed that 

the one-year limitation to file an IPR petition reset when a 

complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Bennett 

Regul. Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 905 F.3d 

1311, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Bennett I). Following our 

then-binding precedent in Click-To-Call Technologies, LP 

v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), we held 

that Atlanta Gas’s petition was time barred because it was 

filed more than one year after Atlanta Gas was served with 

a complaint alleging patent infringement, even though the 

complaint was later dismissed without prejudice. Bennett I, 905 F.3d at 1315. Accordingly, we vacated the 

Board’s decision and remanded to terminate the proceeding without reaching the unpatentability merits. We noted 

that the Board’s sanction order might still stand even 

though we directed the Board to terminate the underlying 

proceeding. But because the Board had not yet finalized 

its sanctions decision (i.e., it had not yet set the amount of 

monetary sanctions), we remanded for the Board to “further consider its order given the outcome of th[e] appeal” 

and “quantify any sanctions.” Id. at 1316.

Before the Board acted on our mandate, the Supreme 

Court in Thryv held that we do not have jurisdiction to review determinations relating to § 315(b)’s time bar because 

those determinations are intimately related to institution 

decisions, which are insulated from appeal by the no-appeal bar (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)). 140 S. Ct. at 1373. In other 

words, the Supreme Court made clear that we lack the 

power that we thought we had in Bennett I to review (and 

overrule) the Board’s determination that the IPR was not 

time barred.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 05/13/2022
6 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

Because we could no longer review the Board’s timebar determination, on remand from the Supreme Court, we 

considered the merits of the Board’s unpatentability determination. Bennett Regul. Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light 

Co., 825 F. App’x 773 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Bennett II). We affirmed the Board’s determinations of unpatentability of all 

claims of the ’029 patent, but we maintained the section 

regarding sanctions—remanding to “further consider” the 

order and “quantify any sanctions.” Id. at 783.

On remand from Bennett II, the Board reconsidered its 

order granting monetary sanctions, but it also considered 

the Patent and Trademark Office’s new policy on the time 

bar, which had changed since the Board’s last determination—the final written decision which issued before the appeal in Bennett I. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. 

Guards, Inc., No. IPR2015-00826, 2021 WL 202800 

(P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2021) (Termination Decision). The 

Board vacated its institution decision, terminated the proceeding due to the Patent and Trademark Office’s policy 

change on time bar, and declined to award the requested 

monetary sanctions. The Board explained that “no monetary sanction is warranted because vacatur of the Institution Decision and Final Written Decision, and termination 

of the proceeding, most effectively resolve the issues on remand by operating as a sufficient sanction while also conforming this Decision to current Office policy” on the time

bar. Id. at *3.

Atlanta Gas appeals, arguing that we have jurisdiction 

to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4). For the 

reasons explained below, we disagree and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Atlanta Gas argues that the Board abused its discretion in terminating the proceeding on remand as a sanction

and that the Board’s decision violates our mandate in Bennett II. Bennett responds that we do not have jurisdiction 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 7

to review the Board’s termination decision due to the “No 

Appeal” bar of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). As explained below, we 

agree with Bennett that we lack jurisdiction and that the 

Board’s determination was not inconsistent with our mandate. We address each argument in turn.

I 

Atlanta Gas contends that we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision because it is a final sanctions decision reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).1 

Bennett counters that we lack jurisdiction, citing 35 U.S.C. 

§ 314(d) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv. Because we conclude that the Board’s termination decision 

was based in part on its evaluation of the time bar and was 

not purely a sanctions decision, we conclude that we lack 

jurisdiction to hear Atlanta Gas’s appeal. 

The Board’s “termination” decision was multifaceted, 

considering Bennett’s requested monetary sanctions based 

on Atlanta Gas’s failures to disclose RPIs and also considering “time-bar issues.” Termination Decision, 2021 WL 

202800, at *1. As the cover page to the decision suggests, 

the Board was revisiting its institution decision under 

§ 314, considering the time bar under § 315(a)(1) and (b), 

and evaluating Bennett’s motion for costs and fees under 

37 C.F.R. § 42.12. Id. As the Board itself noted, its decision “terminating [the] proceeding, including vacating [its] 

Institution Decision and Final Written decision, result[ed]

from a holistic evaluation of multiple considerations,” 

1 Atlanta Gas also argues that any discussion in the 

Board’s decision on remand not regarding sanctions violates our mandate in Bennett II. See, e.g., Appellant’s Reply Br. 26 (arguing if the Board vacated outside of the 

context of a sanction “it would plainly have exceeded this 

Court’s mandate”). For the reasons explained in the following section, we disagree.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 7 Filed: 05/13/2022
8 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

including “time-bar issues” and “the development of both 

the law and Office policy on those issues over the course of 

the proceeding.” Termination Decision, 2021 WL 202800, 

at *3. 

Furthermore, the Board’s substantive discussion of 

time-bar considerations was central to its decision. The 

Board described the “lengthy and complex history of [the] 

proceeding” including the facts relevant to the time bar and 

the changes in legal precedent and the Patent and Trademark Office’s policy. Id. at *1. The Office’s new policy

adopts the view of the time bar that we applied in Bennett I, which was based on our prior precedent, Click-ToCall (vacated by Thryv). Termination Decision, 2021 WL 

202800, at *3–4 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, No. IPR2015-00483, 2020 WL 

5803053, at *2–3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2020) (describing this 

history in more detail)). Specifically, the new policy treats

the service of a complaint on a petitioner (or its RPIs or 

privies) as starting the time-bar clock, regardless of 

whether the district court action was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. Id. 

Even Atlanta Gas acknowledges that time-bar issues 

were at the core of the Board’s decision. For instance, it 

argues “the Board’s real reason for choosing termination” 

was to “align this case with ‘Office-policy developments’ on 

a time-bar issue.” Appellant’s Br. 5 (quoting Termination 

Decision, 2021 WL 202800, at *3); see also Appellant’s Reply Br. 23 (“[T]he only thing that can explain the Board’s 

termination order is that the Board saw this Court’s sanctions remand as an opportunity to align this case with the 

Board’s new time-bar policy.”). Thus, we cannot conclude 

that the Board’s decision was purely a sanctions decision 

over which we ordinarily would have jurisdiction.

The fact that the Board’s termination decision occurred 

on remand from our court does not change our conclusion 

that we lack jurisdiction. The Board retains the inherent 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 8 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 9

authority to reconsider its decisions. See GTNX, Inc. 

v. INTTRA, Inc., 789 F.3d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 

1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). And when the Board chooses 

to vacate its institution decision, even on remand, 

§ 314(d)’s no-appeal bar makes clear that it is outside of our 

jurisdiction to review. This was illustrated in BioDelivery 

Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., 

935 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

BioDelivery involved three IPR proceedings in which 

the Board had instituted review on only some of the 

grounds presented by the petitioner (one ground per petition). Id. at 1363–64. The Board issued final written decisions in each IPR, rejecting the sole instituted ground of 

unpatentability and not addressing the non-instituted 

grounds. Id. The petitioner appealed. Id. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court overruled the 

Board’s practice of partially instituting IPR proceedings. 

SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Per SAS, 

the Board had only a binary choice to institute or not. Id.

at 1355. The petitioner in BioDelivery moved in this court

for a remand to the Board under SAS, which we granted 

before deciding the merits of its appeal. BioDelivery, 

935 F.3d at 1364. 

On remand, the Board modified its institution decisions to instead deny the petitions and terminate the proceedings. Id. The Board emphasized certain 

considerations it must take into account when deciding

whether to institute a proceeding, including its discretion 

to deny institution even if the threshold for institution2 is 

2 Section 314 governs institutions of IPRs and states 

at its “threshold” that the Director may not institute unless 

“there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would 

prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged 

in the petition.”

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 9 Filed: 05/13/2022
10 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

met and its requirement to consider the effect on the “efficient administration of the Office.” Id. Taking these considerations into account—and looking anew at the 

petitioner’s other grounds, which were not previously instituted—it concluded that denial of institution was appropriate because “the overwhelming majority of unpatentability 

grounds presented by Petitioner fail[ed] to meet the standard for institution.” Id. at 1364–65 (quoting the Board’s 

decision). 

The petitioner again appealed. We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 1365–67. Like the 

Board’s decision, we noted the Board’s “discretion to not institute even when the threshold showing is met,” citing reasons such as “administrative efficiency.” Id. at 1365–66

(quoting Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 

896 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). We then noted that 

§ 314(d) “plainly states that the Patent Office’s decision 

whether to institute IPR is not appealable” and that this

includes the Board’s vacatur of prior institution decisions. 

Id. at 1366. Accordingly, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s reconsideration of its institution decision and its discretionary denial of institution,

and we dismissed the appeal. Id. at 1367. 

The facts here are similar. As in BioDelivery, this appeal involved a remand from our court for the Board to reconsider certain issues. On remand, the Board analyzed 

considerations that are uniquely within its discretion to 

consider—time-bar policy here, and “efficient administration of the Office” in BioDelivery, id. at 1364–65. As in BioDelivery, “we would be strained to describe these decisions 

to modify the Board’s previous institution decisions and 

deny institution on remand as anything but a ‘determination whether to institute’ proceedings—statutory language 

that is not limited to an initial determination to the exclusion of a determination on reconsideration.” Id. at 1366

(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)) (cleaned up). Accordingly, the 

result is as it was in BioDelivery: the Board’s termination 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 10 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 11

decision on remand, which depends on its analysis of 

§ 315(b)’s time bar and changed Patent and Trademark Office policy related thereto, is final and nonappealable.

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the 

Board’s termination decision does not end our inquiry, 

however, as Atlanta Gas also argues that the termination 

decision violates our mandate in Bennett II. 

II

Atlanta Gas argues that any portions of the Board’s 

termination decision that were not focused on the “narrow 

purpose” of “quantify[ing] its sanctions award” violates our 

mandate in Bennett II. Appellant’s Br. 43–44 (quoting Bennett II, 825 F. App’x. at 775, 783). We disagree. 

Our interpretation of our own mandate is a question of 

law reviewed de novo. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 

115 F.3d 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under the mandate 

rule, “[o]nly the issues actually decided—those within the 

scope of the judgment appealed from, minus those explicitly reserved or remanded by the court—are foreclosed from 

further consideration.” Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer 

Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Atlanta Gas argues that the Board’s termination has 

the effect of “revers[ing]” our determination in Bennett II—

which affirmed the unpatentability of the claims of the 

’029 patent—rendering our opinion merely advisory. Appellant’s Reply Br. 19; see also Appellant’s Br. 42–44. Although the unpatentability issues were locked in on remand

by the mandate rule, as Atlanta Gas argues, this does not 

mean the Board violated the mandate rule by terminating

the proceeding for time-bar reasons. The Board’s remand 

decision did not analyze, criticize, or alter the unpatentability issues decided in Bennett II. “Reversing” this court’s 

determination—as Atlanta Gas would have us believe occurred—would have involved the Board disagreeing with 

our unpatentability decision and changing course on 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 11 Filed: 05/13/2022
12 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

remand. There is no indication that the Board had a 

change of heart regarding the merits. Indeed, it would 

make little sense for the Board to disagree with our decision affirming the Board’s unpatentability determination. 

Instead, the Board based its decision to terminate, in part, 

on time-bar considerations, which we are precluded from 

reviewing. 

Furthermore, our mandate in Bennett II did not foreclose the Board from reconsidering its stance on the time 

bar. In Bennett I, we expressly reached the time-bar issue, 

reversing the Board. If that had been the end of the story, 

the Board would have been precluded from reconsidering 

the time bar by the mandate rule because we actually decided the issue. But the Supreme Court vacated our determination following Thryv, making clear that such time-bar 

determinations are outside of our jurisdiction to review. In 

accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction, our decision in Bennett II did not touch the time-bar issue and addressed the unpatentability arguments on the merits. We 

said nothing about the time bar because we could not say 

anything. Moreover, the Board retains “inherent authority” to reconsider its decisions regarding institution, 

GTNX, 789 F.3d at 1313, including after a remand from our 

court, BioDelivery, 935 F.3d at 1366. Thus, the Board permissibly took its first opportunity to reconsider its application of the time bar on remand after Bennett II. 

Although we disagree with Atlanta Gas that the Board 

violated our mandate in Bennett II, we recognize that the 

result here is unusual and would be inappropriate in most 

cases. Typically, cases are not terminated on remand after 

the merits have been affirmed. But this result is not problematic in this specific case. Here, contrary to Atlanta 

Gas’s arguments, see, e.g., Appellant’s Reply Br. 26, there 

is no concern about “shenanigans.” As discussed above, we 

agreed with the Board’s merits determination and affirmed

its decision on that front, so it would be hard to understand 

why the Board would seek to nullify our opinion other than 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 12 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 13

for appropriate reasons. And we see nothing that indicates 

the Board was seeking to subvert the mandate by using the 

time-bar determination as a pretext. We note that, depending on the evidence presented, such a case could be 

considered “shenanigans,” which would be reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act or on mandamus review. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 

275 (2016) (suggesting “shenanigans” would be reviewable 

under 35 U.S.C. § 319 and under the APA); see also Sling 

TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, 

840 F. App’x 598, 599 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (indicating we would 

have jurisdiction to consider, in extraordinary circumstances, a mandamus petition challenging a decision to deinstitute) (citing Mylan Lab’ys Ltd. v. Janssen 

Pharmaceutica, N.V., 989 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 

2021)).3

Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s termination 

decision did not violate our mandate in Bennett II. Although the outcome here is that the merits determination 

became moot in light of the Board’s time-bar reconsideration, Atlanta Gas has not persuaded us that the Board did 

so for reasons that would allow our review. 

3 On the penultimate page of Atlanta Gas’s reply 

brief, it requests that we treat its appeal as a petition for a 

writ of mandamus. This request is too late, being brought 

for the first time in reply, and too little, being asked in a 

footnote. Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1091 n.5

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a

reply brief are not properly before this court.”); SmithKline 

Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments raised in footnotes are not 

preserved.”).

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 13 Filed: 05/13/2022
14 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT CO. v. BENNETT REGUL. GUARDS, INC. 

CONCLUSION

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the 

Board’s termination decision vacating its institution decision based, in part, on its consideration that the proceeding 

should have been time barred from the outset. We have 

considered Atlanta Gas’s other arguments and find them 

without merit. 

DISMISSED

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 14 Filed: 05/13/2022
 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1759

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-

00826.

______________________

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 

The PTAB’s sanctions order is not excluded from the 

appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, as the panel 

majority holds. Our appellate jurisdiction of PTAB decisions is set by statute; no exception excludes the appeal of 

a sanctions order. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s 

ruling that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

DISCUSSION

The subject patent is U.S. Patent No. 5,810,029 (“the 

’029 patent”), assigned to Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. 

This appeal is from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s 

(PTAB) issuance of a Sanctions Order against the inter 

partes review (IPR) petitioner Atlanta Gas Light Company, 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 15 Filed: 05/13/2022
2 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 

for failure to initially list its corporate parent and all other 

possible privies as a “real party in interest,” as required by 

35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). In the Sanctions Order on appeal, 

the PTAB replaced its prior sanction of attorney fees and 

costs with the sanction of vacatur of the PTAB’s final IPR 

decision and termination of all IPR proceedings.1

On appeal, Atlanta Gas states that the sanction of vacatur of the PTAB’s final IPR decision holding all the ’029

patent claims invalid, and terminating all IPR proceedings, 

is heavily disproportionate to the asserted offense, and

thus is arbitrary and contrary to law and precedent. Atlanta Gas also states that its initial designation of real 

party in interest conformed with precedent, and that in all 

events it provided an amended listing to meet the PTAB’s 

objections. 

The Sanctions Order is the only issue on appeal. The 

panel majority holds that we do not have jurisdiction to receive this appeal. Atlanta Gas argues that the award of 

sanctions is routinely appealable and conforms to the jurisdictional authority of the Federal Circuit for PTAB appeals. Patent owner Bennett responds that the PTAB 

acted in accordance with law. The panel majority concludes that “we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s termination decision vacating its institution decision based, 

in part, on its consideration that the proceeding should 

have been time barred from the outset.” Maj. Op. at 14. 

I cannot agree that this action is not subject to judicial 

review. Appellate jurisdiction is fundamental to the processes of law. See, e.g., Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 

160, 170 (1991) (Marshall, J., concurring) (“judicial review 

1 Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, 

Inc., IPR2015–00826, 2021 WL 202800, at *4 (P.T.A.B. 

Jan. 20, 2021) (“Sanctions Order”).

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 16 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 3

perfects a delegated-lawmaking scheme by assuring that 

the exercise of such power remains within statutory 

bounds.”); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 692 (2001) (the 

Supreme “Court has suggested, however, that the Constitution may well preclude granting ‘an administrative body 

the unreviewable authority to make determinations implicating fundamental rights.’”) (quoting Superintendent, 

Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 450 

(1985)). 

Here the agency imposed the sanction of cancellation

of extensive administrative proceedings and their final decisions of patent invalidity, which final decisions had been 

appealed to the Federal Circuit and affirmed with issuance 

of the mandate on patent invalidity. We surely have jurisdiction to receive appeal of the agency action vacating all 

these proceedings and decisions, and purportedly including 

vacatur of decisions of the Federal Circuit. Our appellate 

jurisdiction is surely within our statutory assignment of judicial review of decisions of the PTAB.

The imposed sanction arises from Atlanta Gas’ notice listing of real parties in interest

The only issue on appeal is the Sanctions Order, and 

all agree that the basis for the sanction is Atlanta Gas’ actions relating to the mandatory listing of the real parties in 

interest. Atlanta Gas summarizes the focus of the debate 

as to real parties in interest, as follows:

Just before the Board’s Final Written Decision in 

2016, AGLC’s parent company AGL Resources was 

involved in a merger and was renamed. Bennett 

challenged AGLC’s mandatory notices before the 

Board, arguing that (1) AGL Resources’ new parent 

company, The Southern Company, was an RPI, and 

(2) AGL Resources itself—already listed as an 

RPI—was a new RPI due to its name change.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 17 Filed: 05/13/2022
4 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 

AGLC pressed numerous meritorious factual arguments that The Southern Company was not an RPI 

and AGL Resources’ name change did not create a

new RPI.

Atlanta Gas Br. 1–2 (emphasis in original). After the 

PTAB disagreed, Atlanta Gas states that “in an effort to 

avoid an unnecessary procedural skirmish, AGLC proffered—and the Board accepted—an updated notice ‘that 

out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any dispute 

over the proper scope of Petitioner’s real party-in-interest 

designation’ included The Southern Company along with 

AGL Resources’ name change.” Id. at 2 (quoting Updated 

Mandatory Notice of Atlanta Gas Light Co., IPR2015–

00826, 4 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2016) (Appx712). 

The PTAB accepted the updated notice, and denied 

Bennett’s request to terminate the IPR. The PTAB conducted the proceeding and decided the merits of the IPR, 

holding claims 1–8 of the ’029 patent invalid for anticipation or obviousness. The PTAB announced the imposition 

of a sanction on Atlanta Gas, based on the cost to Bennett 

to prosecute the real-party-in-interest issue. The decision 

did not quantify the sanction. Atlanta Gas Light Company 

v. Bennett Regulatory Guards, Inc., IPR 2015-00826 

(P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016) (Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing and Patent Owner’s Motion for Sanctions) (Appx 12–33). 

Both sides appealed; Bennett argued that the IPR was 

time-barred, and also appealed the merits of the invalidity 

decision. Atlanta Gas appealed the still-unquantified sanction.

The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision on 

time-bar grounds, stating that “[b]ecause the Board exceeded its authority and contravened § 315(b)’s time bar 

when it instituted Atlanta Gas’ petition, we vacate its final 

written decision.” Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 18 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 5

Atlanta Gas Light Co., 905 F.3d 1311, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 

(“Bennett I”). As for the sanction, the court remanded to 

the PTAB for quantification of the monetary amount of 

Bennett’s costs and attorney fees. Id. at 1316. 

Meanwhile the Supreme Court had granted certiorari 

in a case that concerned a PTAB time-bar issue. In 2020 

the Court decided Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, 

LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), holding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) 

precludes judicial review of the PTAB’s time-bar decision 

in the institution phase. The Court stated:

The question before us: Does § 314(d)’s bar on judicial review of the agency’s decision to institute inter partes review preclude Click-to-Call’s appeal? 

Our answer is yes. The agency’s application of 

§ 315(b)’s time limit, we hold, is closely related to 

its decision whether to institute inter partes review 

and is therefore rendered nonappealable 

by § 314(d). 

Id. at 1370. The Court required dismissal by the Federal 

Circuit for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Based on its decision in Thryv, the Supreme Court 

granted certiorari for the appeal of Bennett I, and vacated 

and remanded our decision. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2711 (2020) (GVR). 

The case was remanded to “the Federal Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP . . . .” 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv and the ensuing GVR require attention. In Thryv the Court did not hold 

that all time-bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) 

are unappealable; the Court held that “institution” decisions containing time-bar issues are unappealable because 

they relate to institution. Thryv, 140 S. Ct. at 1370. However, a sanctions decision does not “expressly govern[] institution and nothing more.” Id. at 1373.

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 19 Filed: 05/13/2022
6 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 

On remand, the Federal Circuit held that since we 

could not review whether the IPR was time-barred, the 

merits of the PTAB’s invalidity decision remained before 

us. We then affirmed the PTAB’s decision that claims 1–8 

of the ’029 patent are invalid. Bennett Regulator Guards, 

Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 825 Fed. App’x 773 (Fed. Cir. 

2020) (“Bennett II”). Our mandate affirmed invalidity and 

remanded to the PTAB to “quantify any sanctions.” Id. at 

783.

On receiving the remand, the PTAB “modified” its 

award of monetary sanctions of attorney fees and costs, 

stating that Bennett’s quantification of $96,338.30 “significantly exceeds the range that we contemplated.” Sanctions Order at *3. The PTAB then imposed the sanction of 

vacating all IPR decisions and terminating all IPR proceedings. The PTAB stated that vacatur and termination “most 

effectively resolve the issues on remand by operating as a 

sufficient sanction while also conforming this Decision to 

current Office policy.” Id. at *4. 

Atlanta Gas appeals, arguing that the sanction is disproportionate to the asserted infraction, raising the question of the authority of the PTAB to vacate Federal Circuit 

final decisions, and stating that this action leaves the ’029 

patent in “an uncertain state of suspended animation.” Atlanta Gas Br. 1. Atlanta Gas requests appellate review and 

clarification. However, the panel majority holds that we do 

not have jurisdiction to receive this appeal. I cannot agree.

Statute and precedent support Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeal of the Sanctions Order

The Federal Circuit plainly has routine appellate jurisdiction over the PTAB’s award of sanctions. 

The criteria for the award of sanctions are well-established. In Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 

1992), this court applied these criteria to the PTAB’s award 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 20 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 7

of sanctions in an interference action. We stated that “[w]e 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A),” and summarized the criteria for review of 

the PTAB’s sanction award: 

[W]e review both a 37 C.F.R. § 1.616 decision to 

sanction an interference party and the choice of 

sanction for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs if the Board’s decision (1) is clearly 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on 

an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly 

erroneous fact findings; or (4) follows from a record 

that contains no evidence on which the Board could 

rationally base its decision.

Id. at 1529 (citing Heat & Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., 

Inc., 785 F.2d 1017, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Gerritsen

court affirmed the Board’s determination that sanctionable 

conduct had occurred, but the court also reviewed the substance of the award, and concluded that the sanction of dismissal of the interference proceeding was an abuse of 

discretion. Id. at 1531–32. 

However, the panel majority here holds that we have 

no jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s sanction. This holding 

does not comport with precedent, and conflicts with the 

court’s assigned jurisdiction over final decisions of the 

PTAB. See 35 U.S.C. § 141(c):

(c) A party to an inter partes review . . . who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . may appeal the 

Board’s decision only to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

No statute, no precedent, removes sanctions issues from 

appealability. I take note that the panel majority, while 

holding that it does not have jurisdiction of appeal of the 

termination sanction, also “conclude[s] that the Board’s 

termination decision did not violate our mandate in 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 21 Filed: 05/13/2022
8 ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 

Bennett II.” Maj. Op. at 14. The majority also observes 

that “the outcome here is that the merits determination became moot,” id., although this result is contrary to our 

mandate in Bennett II holding the ’029 patent invalid. The 

majority adds to the contradictions, even while denying jurisdiction.

With this denial of appellate review, the PTAB’s sanctions action stands as final, authorizing the PTAB to vacate 

PTAB final decisions at any time, here restoring the ’029 

patent to validity despite the Federal Circuit’s affirmance 

of invalidity. Yet the panel majority holds that “we lack 

jurisdiction to review the Board’s termination decision.” 

Id. 

In addition to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c), shown ante, Federal 

Circuit jurisdiction is assigned in 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A): 

(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction . . . 

(4) of an appeal from a decision of—(A) the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office . . . . 

 The right of judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies has long been recognized. See, e.g., St. Joseph 

Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 84 (1936) 

(Brandeis, J., concurring) (“The supremacy of law demands 

that there shall be opportunity to have some court decide 

whether an erroneous rule of law was applied and whether 

the proceeding in which facts were adjudicated was conducted regularly. To that extent, the person asserting a 

right, whatever its source, should be entitled to the independent judgment of a court on the ultimate question of 

constitutionality.”). 

Today there is rich precedent treating access to judicial 

review of agency action, amid the complexities and congestion of the administrative state. Here, however, statutory 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 22 Filed: 05/13/2022
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. 9

assignment of jurisdiction resolved the public and private 

interests intended to be served. This context applies to the 

theory on which the panel majority appears to base its decision, that is, that here there was a time-bar issue. The 

majority states that “the outcome here is that the merits 

determination became moot in light of the Board’s time-bar 

reconsideration.” Maj. Op. at 14. On that basis, the majority accepts that the Federal Circuit’s decision affirming invalidity of the ’029 patent is “nullif[ied].” Maj. Op. at 13

(“[I]t would be hard to understand why the Board would 

seek to nullify our opinion other than for appropriate reasons.”). Yet throughout its opinion the majority refers to 

the “unpatentability” of the ’029 patent. Maj. Op. at 2, 4, 

6, 11, 12. These aspects warrant resolution, reinforcing,

rather than negating, the jurisdictional obligation of the 

Federal Circuit. 

Here, after extensive administrative and Federal Circuit review, the efficiency intended by the America Invents 

Act is obscured. The aspects remaining on appeal cry for 

resolution, not denial of jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

The appropriate path is to accept our jurisdiction of 

this appeal and to decide the merits of the question on appeal, viz., whether the PTAB acted reasonably and in accordance with law, in its choice of sanction for Atlanta Gas’ 

handling of the real-party-in-interest issue. The PTAB’s 

ruling is flawed, and warrants appellate attention. From 

my colleagues’ holding that we have no jurisdiction to receive this appeal, I respectfully dissent. 

Case: 21-1759 Document: 29 Page: 23 Filed: 05/13/2022