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.
35 U.S.C. § 314(d), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.