May 15, 2020
Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Ciena Corporation v. Oyster Optics, LLC, No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit denied Ciena Corporation’s motion to vacate the PTAB’s final written decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Court held that by requesting that the Board adjudicate its IPR petition, Ciena Corporation consented to having the assigned Board judges rule upon its invalidity challenges, regardless of how the judges were appointed. Additionally, Ciena also sought a stay in the district court litigation initiated by Oyster, further signaling Ciena’s acceptance of the PTAB’s authority. Thus, unlike the Arthrex patent owner who had no choice but to respond at the PTAB to the petitioner, Ciena Corporation’s active pursuit of the PTAB’s judgment waived any Appointment Clause challenge.
Copyright © 2020 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.
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
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.