August 26, 2020
Authored and Edited by Zachery D. Olah; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2019-2118 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent owner’s Administrative Procedure Act suit challenging the constitutionality of the PTAB canceling patent claims found unpatentable in an IPR proceeding.
Security People sued its competitor, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,655,180. The competitor filed for an IPR petition against the ’180 patent. The Board instituted review of one claim and found that claim unpatentable. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the finding. Security People then sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court that the Board violated its constitutional rights by canceling the patent claim. The district court dismissed Security People’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Security People appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court rejected Security People’s argument that the Board lacks authority to hear constitutional claims, and therefore Security People could not have raised the constitutional argument during the IPR. The Court explained that, regardless of whether the Board could hear a constitutional claim, the Federal Circuit could address constitutional claims on appeal from IPR proceedings. The Court also rejected Security People’s argument that its constitutional challenge became ripe for review only after the Board issued a certificate canceling the patent claim. The Court explained that the cancelation certificate “is irrelevant to the finality of the agency’s action,” and the final written decision is “the agency action that will directly affect the parties” where constitutionality may be raised.
The Federal Circuit further explained that Security People’s APA challenge was inappropriate because the statutory text confirms Congress’s intent to preclude district courts from reviewing final written decisions, which are instead reviewable by the Federal Circuit.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), jurisdiction, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), America Invents Act (AIA), subject matter jurisdiction
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.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 2024
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.