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 the PTAB’s Authority to Deinstitute IPR Proceedings

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.

Tags

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

R. Gordon Wright
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6555
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

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.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

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

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

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

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