March 29, 2021
Authored and Edited by Zan Newkirk; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., No. 2021-1071 (March 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit granted Janssen’s motion to dismiss Mylan’s appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) denial of inter partes review (IPR) institution.
The Federal Circuit first addressed whether it had jurisdiction over Mylan’s direct appeal. The Federal Circuit concluded that PTAB decisions denying institution of IPR are not subject to review on direct appeal. While the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over PTAB’s final decision in an IPR, it does not have such jurisdiction over PTAB’s institution decisions under §314(d). Therefore, Mylan could not directly appeal the PTAB’s decision denying institution of its IPR.
Then, the Federal Circuit addressed whether it had jurisdiction over Mylan’s request for mandamus. A federal court can issue writs of mandamus when necessary to protect its prospective jurisdiction. The Court noted that prospective jurisdiction is triggered when a party takes a preliminary step that might lead to appellate jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit. The preliminary step of an IPR is the filing of a petition, and the Court found jurisdiction over Mylan’s request for mandamus on the merits. Mylan’s request, however, was denied for failing to show a clear right to relief.
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.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
SCOTUS: Justices Reject Three-Year Limit on Damages for Copyright Infringement
May 10, 2024
Prosecution First Blog
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
IP Updates
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 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.