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

Federal Circuit IP Blog

CAFC Holds that Request to PTAB Adjudication Waives Constitutionality Challenge

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.

Tags

jurisdiction

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

Broad's 3rd Annual Biotech IP Summit

November 10, 2026

Cambridge

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 5 of 6: Special Considerations for Third-Party Requesters

October 14, 2026

Seminar

PTAB Bar Association Thought Leader Summit 2026

October 7, 2026

Alexandria

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding in DRAM Data Path Patent

October 5, 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