Source: https://maierandmaier.com/ipr-time-bar-institution-decision-appealable/
Timestamp: 2019-09-19 12:37:33
Document Index: 518232708

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 315', '§ 315', '§ 315', '§ 315', '§ 314', '§ 315', '§ 314', '§ 314', '§ 314', '§ 314']

IPR Time-Bar Institution Decision Is Appealable - Maier & Maier - Patent Attorneys
Maier & Maier
February 5, 2018 4:52 EDT
IPR Time-Bar Institution Decision Is Appealable
In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 15-1944 – 2018-01-08, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether an inter partes review (IPR) Institution Decision can be appealed based on a time-bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit ruled Institution Decisions made under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) are appealable.
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) states “[a]n 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.”
In 2010, the owner of the patents at issue, Ericsson, filed a complaint against three defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. Broadcom was not a named defendant. Ericsson prevailed on the infringement claims. In 2013, Broadcom filed three separate petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review (IPR) against the individual patents at issue. Wi-Fi One, LLC acquired the patents at issue from Ericsson while the IPRs were pending. Wi-Fi argued that Broadcom was time-barred from filing the IPRs because Broadcom was in privity with the defendants of the previous lawsuit filed more than 1 year prior. Wi-Fi filed a motion with the PTAB seeking indemnity agreements, defense agreements, payments, and communications as evidence of such privity. The PTAB denied Wi-Fi’s motion, instituted the IPR proceedings, and found the claims unpatentable.
Wi-Fi One appealed the Final Written Decisions to the Federal Circuit including arguments that the PTAB’s time-bar determination be overruled. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Decisions relying precedent from Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which ruled § 315(b) time-bar determinations are final and nonappealable under 35 USC § 314(d).
Despite this ruling, Wi-Fi again sought relief by petitioning for a rehearing en banc. This petition was granted.
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that PTAB institution decisions made based the statutory timing provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) of the America Invents Act are appealable. In the majority Opinion, Judge Reyna emphasized the “strong presumption” for judicial review, noting “[i]n view of this strong presumption, we will abdicated judicial review only when Congress provides a ‘clear and convincing’ indication that it intends to prohibit review.” Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 15-1944 – 2018-01-08 (citing Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, at 2140 (2016)).
35 U.S.C. § 314(d) states “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The en banc Federal Circuit determined the natural reading of “under this section” limits its reach to institution determinations made under § 314. Since the time-bar provision is found in section 315(b) of the statute and not § 314, the en banc Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) did not apply and consequently the institution decision was appealable. This decision overruled the prior Federal Circuit holding in Achates.
Category: Articles & Media, Firm News, General
Tags: Appeal, Federal Circuit, Institution Decision, IPR, PTAB
Oral Arguments in Oil States Show a Divided Supreme Court