November 22, 2021
Authored and Edited by William C. Neer; Matthew R. Ritter; Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Apple, Inc. v. Iancu,[1]Judge Edward Davila dismissed a lawsuit brought by tech companies who had asked to set aside the “NHK-Fintiv rule.”[2]This rule allows the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to consider various factors when determining whether to institute review of a patent that is asserted in ongoing parallel district court litigation.[3]
Rather than appealing specific PTAB decisions where the NHK-Fintiv rule was used to deny institution, Plaintiffs’ complaint challenged the administrative framework of the PTAB’s precedential opinions. Plaintiffs presented three arguments: 1) the Director exceeded statutory authority in adopting the NHK-Fintiv rule; 2) the NHK-Fintiv rule is arbitrary, capricious, and violates the AIA; and 3) the NHK-Fintiv rule is a final, binding rule that was issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking. In response, the Government filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Plaintiffs lacked standing and that the issues were not justiciable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had standing to bring the case, but that the issues were not justiciable in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Cuozzo[4]and Thryv.[5]
Regarding standing, the Court found that Plaintiffs had established an injury-in-fact based on the PTAB’s denial of an opportunity to obtain the benefit of inter partes review (IPR) through the application of the NHK-Fintiv rule. The Court also found the complaint showed a causal connection between the NHK-Fintiv rule and diminished opportunity to experience the benefits of IPR. Finally, the Court concluded that injury was redressable by the ability to enjoin the Director from applying the NHK-Fintiv rule.
After finding standing, the Court addressed the justiciability of Plaintiffs’ arguments. The Court examined the underlying rational of Cuozzo and Thryv, which held that issues closely related to the Director’s decision to institute an IPR petition are non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Relying on this precedent, the Court found that it “cannot deduce a principled reason why preclusion of judicial review under § 314(d) would not extend to the Director’s determination that parallel litigation is a factor in denying IPR.”[6]The Court then concluded that § 314(d) bars Plaintiffs’ challenge and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.
[1]No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021).
[2] Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. and NHK Spring Co. Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. are two PTAB cases that the Director designated as precedential. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated precedential on May 5, 2020) and NHK Spring Co. Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (designated precedential on May 7, 2019). Although these cases are precedential PTAB opinions, the Court refers to them as the “NHK-Fintiv rule.”
[3]For a detailed discussion of the NHK-Fintiv rule, please see Brooke M. Wilner et al., PTAB Designates Decision on Discretionary Denial as Precedential, https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/at-the-ptab-blog/ptab-designates-decision-on-discretionary-denial-as-precedential.html.
[4]Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016).
[5]Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020).
[6]Apple, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021).
Apple, Inc., Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), institutional decision, Precedential, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), District Court, Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Copyright © 2021 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
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
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
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.