April 6, 2021
Authored and Edited by R. Gordon Wright; Brooke M. Wilner; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, Nos. 2020-1601, 1602 (Mar. 16, 2021), the Federal Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part a direct appeal of two IPR institution decisions and two accompanying mandamus petitions.
Sling TV filed two IPR petitions challenging two patents owned by Realtime. The PTAB initially instituted, but later deinstituted, both challenges. Sling then appealed the Board’s deinstitution decisions and filed petitions for writ of mandamus in the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Sling’s appeal and mandamus petition challenging the Board’s decisions in the first IPR. Because the Board had already determined that the patent was unpatentable, and because Realtime had dismissed its appeal of that decision, the Court held both challenges moot.
The Court then addressed Sling’s appeal and mandamus petition challenging the Board’s decisions in the second IPR. The Court dismissed Sling’s appeal, holding that the Board has inherent authority to reconsider its institution decisions and that all institution (and thus all deinstitution) decisions are “final and nonappealable.”
The Court also denied Sling’s mandamus petition. In its denial, the Court emphasized an earlier decision, Mylan Laboratories LTD. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., in which it held that, absent an accompanying constitutional claim, mandamus petitions challenging the Board’s decision to deny institution are unlikely to meet the strict mandamus criteria. Because Sling did not present a colorable constitutional claim, the Court denied its mandamus petition.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.