Court Opinion

ID: 9925899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 15:01:56.945841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:52.313451
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2048    Document: 35     Page: 1    Filed: 01/23/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  In re: XENCOR, INC.,
                         Appellant
                  ______________________

                        2023-2048
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/803,690.
                   ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

     Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PROST, Circuit Judge.
                         ORDER
     Xencor, Inc. has filed its opening brief challenging the
 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
 rejecting its patent claims. The Director of the United
 States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) now moves
 to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and remand so that the
 USPTO’s Appeals Review Panel can be convened to “clarify
 the USPTO’s position on the proper analysis of Jepson-for-
 mat and means-plus function claims in the field of biotech-
 nology, and particularly in the antibody art,” and issue “a
 revised decision.” Xencor opposes the motion.
Case: 23-2048     Document: 35      Page: 2     Filed: 01/23/2024

 2                                            IN RE: XENCOR, INC.

     An agency may properly request a remand to recon-
 sider its previous position. SKF USA Inc. v. United States,
 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In such cases, re-
 mand is usually appropriate if the agency expresses a “sub-
 stantial and legitimate” concern about its earlier decision.
 Id. Here, the Director has raised such concerns, arguing
 that the novelty and complexity of the issues presented in
 this case favor a more thorough evaluation and explanation
 than provided in the Board’s final written decision, and
 that remanding could preserve resources.
      To be sure, it would have been preferable for the Direc-
 tor to have filed this motion before Xencor “expended the
 time, money, and effort to file [its] brief,” In re Hester, 838
 F.2d 1193, 1193–94 (Fed. Cir. 1988). But an “agency may
 request a remand (without confessing error) in order to re-
 consider its previous position” even after the opening brief
 is filed, SKF, 254 F.3d at 1029, and we do not view the cir-
 cumstances of this remand request as suggesting improper
 motive. We further agree with the Director that Xencor’s
 concern that remand might impact patent term adjustment
 is conjecture at this time and insufficient to override the
 benefits of remand here, particularly given we are confi-
 dent that proceedings will be conducted expeditiously.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion to remand for further proceedings con-
 sistent with this order and the motion is granted.
Case: 23-2048     Document: 35   Page: 3   Filed: 01/23/2024

 IN RE: XENCOR, INC.                                     3

     (2) Costs to Xencor.
                                           FOR THE COURT

 January 23, 2024
      Date