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

Courts Can Review the PTAB’s Time-Bar Determination of IPR Institution

January 17, 2018

Authored and Edited by Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), the Federal Circuit, en banc, held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s time-bar determination under § 315(b) is reviewable. The Court remanded the earlier decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 837 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which summarily affirmed the Board’s determination, holding that the time-bar determination is non-reviewable.

Broadcom filed, and the Board instituted review of, three petitions for IPR, rejecting Wi-Fi’s argument that the petitions were time-barred under 35 USC § 315(b). Wi-Fi appealed the Board’s Final Written Decision, asking the Court to reverse or vacate the Board’s time-bar determinations. Sitting en banc, the Court overruled previous case precedent, holding that the time-bar determination is judicially reviewable. The Court emphasized the “strong presumption” favoring judicial review of administrative actions and the absence of clear and convincing indication in the AIA regarding Congress’s intent to bar judicial review of § 315(b) time-bar determinations. The Court then remanded the case for the panel to consider the merits of Wi-Fi’s time-bar appeal.

For more information, also see Finnegan’s write-up on the AIA blog.

Tags

rules and rules of practice, America Invents Act (AIA)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Christina Ji-Hye Yang
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4465
Email
Kara A. Specht
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6481
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2018 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

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Singapore IP Week 2026

August 26-27, 2026

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

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