直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit Confirms That Same PTAB Panel Can Institute and Decide an IPR

January 21, 2016

Authored and Edited by Maureen D. Queler; Marianne S. Terrot, Ph.D.

In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, a split Federal Circuit panel held that having the same PTAB panel that instituted an inter partes review also decide its merits does not violate the AIA or the Constitution. No. 2014-1771 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2016). Ethicon, appealing the invalidation of a patent directed to surgical stapling devices, argued on appeal that this practice raised due process concerns and contravened the AIA’s assignment of those functions.

As a preliminary matter, the majority held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) did not bar consideration of the issue. The Court held that Section 314(d) only bars appellate review of institution decisions and that Ethicon’s challenge was to the PTAB’s authority to make a final decision.

Ethicon argued that having the same panel institute the IPR and issue the final decision biased the panel against the patent on a limited record and deprived the patent holder of their due process rights to an impartial decision maker. The majority disagreed, and analogized the IPR procedure to a district court first determining the likelihood of success on the merits, and later the merits of the case.

Ethicon also argued that the AIA’s text and history reflect an intent to withhold from the Director the power to delegate institution decisions to the PTAB. The majority disagreed, finding such delegation within the implied authority of agency heads and also permitted under the AIA’s grant of rulemaking powers to the Director.

Thus, the majority concluded that “[t]here is nothing in the Constitution or the statute that precludes the same Board panel from making the decision to institute and then rendering the final decision.”

Turning to the merits, the majority affirmed the obviousness determination.

In dissent, Judge Newman argued that the AIA requires separation of the institution and trial phases of inter partes review, with the first being explicitly assigned to the Director and the second to the PTAB. According to Judge Newman, it would be proper for the Director to delegate institution to examiners or solicitors, but not to the PTAB.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 314(d), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP