September 10, 2019
Authored and Edited by Megan L. Meyers; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Nos. 19-1643, 19-1644, 19-1645 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019), the Federal Circuit granted Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.’s (“Aquestive”) motion to dismiss BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc.’s (“BDSI”) appeals of the PTAB’s decision, on remand from the Federal Circuit, to decline instituting IPRs altogether on the asserted claims in BDSI’s petitions, even though these IPRs had been previously partially instituted.
Referencing Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, the Court determined that BDSI’s appeals merely challenged the Board’s determination not to institute review, something the Board has discretion to do even upon a showing that there is “a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to at least 1 claim challenged” in the petition. 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (“Where a patent holder merely challenges the Patent Office’s ‘determination that the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood’ of success ‘with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged,’ . . . § 314(d) bars judicial review.”) In arriving at this conclusion, the Court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) is not limited to an initial determination to the exclusion of a determination on reconsideration. The Court noted that here, the Board merely corrected its partial institution errors by revisiting its institution decision after SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu was decided, and it properly exercised its discretion not to institute review at all. 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).
Judge Newman dissented, arguing that the PTAB failed to comply with the Court’s Remand Order instructing the Board to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS, which was “that SAS is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged.” 138 S. Ct. at 1359-60. Judge Newman argued that BDSI was entitled to such a decision.
Copyright © 2019 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
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.