Court Opinion

ID: 4586832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-17 16:00:38.215274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:54.790766
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-2040    Document: 76     Page: 1   Filed: 11/17/2020

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

             KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
                     Appellant

                             v.

    ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
  COMMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
    AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
      PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
                  Intervenor
            ______________________

                        2019-2040
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
 00023.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 17, 2020
                  ______________________

    JUSTIN J. OLIVER, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, ar-
 gued for appellant. Also represented by DANIEL S. GLUECK.

     MOLLY R. SILFEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
 intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
Case: 19-2040     Document: 76     Page: 2    Filed: 11/17/2020

 2                           KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.   v. IANCU

 FARHEENA       YASMEEN   RASHEED,     MAUREEN      DONOVAN
 QUELER.
                   ______________________

     Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
                           Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) insti-
 tuted inter partes review of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No.
 6,690,387, owned by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”).
 The Board concluded that the challenged claims were un-
 patentable. Philips appealed.
     Philips argues that, in deciding to institute inter partes
 review, the Board “incorrectly applied” its own precedent
 relating to fairness in rendering institution decisions, and
 that such “[m]isapplication of the [United States Patent
 and Trademark Office’s] own fairness standard violates the
 Due Process Clause and [amounted to arbitrary and capri-
 cious agency action under the] Administrative Procedure[]
 Act” (“APA”). Reply Br. 1. Specifically, Philips argues that
 the Board misapplied General Plastic Industrial Co. v.
 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, No. IPR2016-01357, 2017 WL
3917706 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017), as confirmed by Valve
 Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., No. IPR2019-
 00062, 2019 WL 1490575 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019). See, e.g.,
 Reply Br. 4. Philips also disputes the merits of the Board’s
 final written decision.
     We lack jurisdiction to entertain Philips’s APA chal-
 lenge, which amounts to an appeal of the Board’s decision
 “whether to institute an inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C.
 §314(d); see Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 140 S.
 Ct. 1367, 1370–74 (2020); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2136, 2139–42 (2016). We also conclude
 that Philips does not advance a colorable due process chal-
 lenge to the institution decision.
Case: 19-2040    Document: 76          Page: 3   Filed: 11/17/2020

 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.   v. IANCU                           3

     As to Philips’s challenge to the Board’s invalidity de-
 termination, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm the Board’s decision as sup-
 ported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance
 with the law. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-
 in-part.
   AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND DISMISSED-IN-PART