September 11, 2020
Authored and Edited by Seth W. Bruneel; Caitlin E. Fowler; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2020), the Federal Circuit denied Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc but granted their petition for panel rehearing in order to withdraw and replace the original March 18, 2020 opinion. The Court maintained its holding that the text of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize same-party or new issue joinder to an existing IPR but modified the opinion to further expand on the Court’s authority to review the Board’s joinder decision.
The Court explained that, while 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that the Director’s determination to institute an IPR is “final and nonappealable,” this does not preclude review where the agency has exceeded its statutory authority. The Court explained that the joinder decision does not concern whether the petition warrants institution or whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits, which the Court is precluded from reviewing under § 314(d). Rather, the joinder decision is a separate decision made after institution regarding the manner in which the IPR will proceed. Thus, the Court held that it has the authority to review the Board’s decision to determine whether it exceed the statutory authority provided to it under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
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.
Articles
California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data
June 4, 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
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.