Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeals by Petitioners Who Were Denied Inter Partes Reviews
The Federal Circuit issued two orders on April 24, 2014 dismissing appeals by petitioners in proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR). Each appeal is summarized as follows:
St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div. v. Volcano Corp. & Michelle K. Lee (as Deputy Director) – Appeal of Denial of IPR Petition
St. Jude brought suit against Volcano for patent infringement of five patents in 2010. St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., No. 10-cv- 631 (D. Del. filed July 27, 2010). Volcano counterclaimed alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Pat. 7,134,994 in September of 2010. More than two years later, the district court dismissed all claims relating to the ‘994 patent (based on stipulations by the parties).
About a half year after the district court dismissal, St. Jude filed a petition for IPR of the ‘994 patent. IPR2013-00109. But that petition was dismissed by the Board (acting as a delegee of the Director) based on the one-year bar for IPR petitions. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). In a case of first impression, the Board determined that a counterclaim alleging infringement of a patent asserted over a year before the filing of the IPR petition triggered the 315(b) bar. St. Jude appealed the Board’s decision not to institute IPR to the Federal Circuit. Volcano and the PTO Director moved to dismiss St. Jude’s Federal Circuit appeal.
The Federal Circuit dismissed St. Jude’s appeal, holding that it may not hear appeals from the Director’s denial of petition for inter partes review. In making its decision, the Court applied 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and explained that an appeal to the Federal Circuit of a decision on IPR lacks jurisdiction unless the Board institutes trial:
Chapter 31 authorizes appeals to this court only from “the final written decision of the [Board] under section 318(a).” Id. § 319. Likewise, section 141(c) in relevant part authorizes appeal only by “a party to an inter partes review . . . who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the [Board] under section 318(a).” Id. § 141(c). What St. Jude now challenges, however, is the Director’s non-institution decision under section 314(a) & (b). That is not a “final written decision” of the Board under section 318(a), and the statutory provisions addressing inter partes review contain no authorization to appeal a noninstitution decision to this court. . . .
The statute thus establishes a two-step procedure for inter partes review: the Director’s decision whether to institute a proceeding, followed (if the proceeding is instituted) by the Board’s conduct of the proceeding and decision with respect to patentability. . . . The statute provides for an appeal to this court only of the Board’s decision at the second step, not the Director’s decision at the first step.
The Federal Circuit’s position on direct appeals from the Director’s decision whether to institute an inter partes review is summarized in the next paragraph:
In fact, the statute goes beyond merely omitting, and underscoring through its structure the omission of, a right to appeal the non-institution decision. It contains a broadly worded bar on appeal. Under the title, “No Appeal,” Section 314(d) declares that “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” Id. § 314(d). That declaration may well preclude all review by any route, which we need not decide. It certainly bars an appeal of the non-institution decision here.
The Court’s holding in St. Jude Medical was also used to dismiss the next appeal which requested mandamus relief:
In re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC. – Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the USPTO
Dominion Dealer Solutions filed several IPR petitions to challenge the patentability of several patents owned by AutoAlert, Inc. IPR2013-00220, -00222, -00223, -00224 and -00225. The Board denied institution of trial for five of the IPR petitions. Dominion filed requests for rehearing, but they were also denied by the Board. Dominion then filed an action in the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge the Board’s decision under the Administrative Procedures Act (see my earlier post). Dominion also filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Director” with the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit denied the petition for mandamus. In denying Dominion’s appeal, the Federal Circuit referenced the St. Jude Medical decision made that same day:
In another Order issued today, we dismiss an appeal by a patent challenger seeking review of the Director’s decision not to institute an inter partes review. See Order Dismissing Appeal, St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., No. 2014-1183 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014). We explain that such a challenger may not appeal the non-institution decision to this court. We conclude that such an appeal is precluded by the statutory provisions addressing inter partes review, including section 314(d)’s broad declaration that the Director’s decision “whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable,” and by our jurisdictional statute. See St. Jude, slip op. at 5-6.
Those conclusions require denial of Dominion’s petition for mandamus relief. At a minimum, given our conclusions about the statutory scheme, Dominion has no “clear and indisputable” right to challenge a noninstitution decision directly in this court, including by way of mandamus. That is all we need to decide.
The Court noted Dominion’s appeal in the Eastern District of Virginia, and its dismissal on April 18, 2014, but concluded “[w]e need not decide that issue here.”
These decisions remind petitioners that they should take every reasonable measure to obtain institution of trial, because appeals of Board decisions denying institution of trial will not easily survive a motion for dismissal in light of the holding in St. Jude Medical. It will be interesting to see whether Dominion will decide to appeal the district court’s dismissal of its APA challenge now that the Federal Circuit has rejected mandamus relief under the St. Jude Medical holding.
Back to All Resources