Opinion ID: 813175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Patent Act Precludes Review Under the APA

Text: To determine whether a particular statute precludes judicial review, we look to its express language, the structure of the statutory scheme, its legislative history and purpose, and the nature of the administrative action involved. Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984). There is a “strong presumption” that Congress did not intend to prohibit all judicial review of a type of agency action. Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 672 (1986); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567 (1975). A statute need not explicitly state that judicial review is unavailable for preclusion to be found. See Bowen, 476 PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS 16 U.S. at 671 (“To preclude judicial review under [the APA] a statute, if not specific in withholding such review, must upon its face give clear and convincing evidence of an intent to withhold it.”) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 41 (1946)). For example, “when a statute provides a detailed mechanism for judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of particular persons, judicial review of those issues at the behest of other persons may be found to be impliedly precluded.” Block, 467 U.S. at 349. As such, judicial review may be precluded when Congressional intent to do so is “fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.” Id. at 351 (quoting Assoc. of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 157 (1970)). The Patent Act expressly provides an intricate scheme for administrative and judicial review of PTO patentability determinations that evinces a clear Congressional intent to preclude actions under the APA seeking review of the PTO’s reasons for deciding to issue a patent. First, the Patent Act establishes specific procedures allowing a patent applicant to appeal PTO rejections of patent claims. 35 U.S.C. §§ 134, 141, 145. Second, the statute permits third parties to challenge issued patents through carefully-circumscribed reexamination proceedings. 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307, 311–318 (2006).1 Third, putative 1 Congress extensively revised this scheme with the passage of new post-grant review and inter partes review procedures as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 6, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (to be codified at Chapters 30-32 of Title 35). Because at all times relevant to this appeal the provisions of the AIA governing post-grant review had not yet taken effect, this opinion discusses the Patent Act as it existed prior to the AIA. Nevertheless, the fact that Congress has prescribed detailed new procedures for administrative and judicial 17 PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS infringers with a sufficiently immediate controversy may challenge the validity of issued patents through a declaratory judgment action, or can raise invalidity as a defense to an infringement suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); 35 U.S.C. § 282; MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). The Patent Act thus presents several mechanisms by which third parties may challenge the PTO’s decision to issue a patent, unlike cases in which preclusion of a suit under the APA would leave an agency action entirely free from judicial review. Cf. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 678 (holding “it is implausible to think [Congress] intended that there be no forum to adjudicate statutory and constitutional challenges to regulations promulgated by the Secretary” for the method by which Medicare Part B payments are calculated) (emphasis original). Having considered and addressed the need for review of PTO patentability determinations, Congress enacted specific procedures allowing third parties to attack the validity of issued claims. It is apparent that Congress decided not to provide for third parties to obtain review of the reasons for allowance of claims. The carefully balanced framework of the Patent Act specifies a well-defined process for how, when, where, and by whom PTO patentability determinations may be challenged. Only a patent applicant may challenge an examiner’s decision to reject claims in original examination under 35 U.S.C. § 131. The applicant must first bring an administrative appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”). 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The applicant may then appeal the Board’s review of issued patents reinforces the conclusion that Congress intended to preclude other avenues of judicial review. PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS 18 decision in this court under 35 U.S.C. § 141, or may file suit against the PTO in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 35 U.S.C. § 145.2 A third party, by contrast, cannot challenge an examiner’s decision after original examination, but only may obtain judicial review of PTO decisions confirming patentability by first participating in inter partes reexamination.3 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c), 141. The Patent Act thus reflects Congressional intent as to which parties should be permitted to challenge the examiner’s patentability determination made during original examination. That the Patent Act dictates the courts in which a disappointed applicant may appeal a patentability determination also shows Congress intended to preclude challenges to such PTO actions under the APA. Every district court of the United States has jurisdiction over an APA claim, while the patent applicant is restricted to review in a single district court or to a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit. 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. Moreover, Congress has protected the interests of competitors and the public through the mechanisms explicitly provided to them in the Patent Act to challenge the validity of issued patents. Preclusion of APA suits challenging the PTO’s reasons for issuing a patent therefore does not “threaten realization of the fundamental objectives of the statute” to promote innovation by incentivizing inventors without unduly limiting competition. Block, 467 U.S. at 352. 2 We note that under the current version of § 145, actions are to be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia, but Congress has retained a statutory scheme that dictates the court in which such actions must be brought. 3 Similarly, under the AIA, a third party may resort to either post-grant review or inter partes review after issuance. See AIA secs. 7(b), (c). 19 PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS We conclude that a Congressional intent to preclude judicial review of the PTO’s reasons for issuing patents is “fairly discernible” from the statutory scheme of the Patent Act. Block, 467 U.S. at 351. Allowing competitors to collaterally attack issued patents through suits under the APA would destroy the Patent Act’s careful framework for judicial review at the behest of particular persons through particular procedures.