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

District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear APA Suit Challenging IPR Constitutionality

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.

Tags

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), jurisdiction, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), America Invents Act (AIA), subject matter jurisdiction

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

2026 FCBA Global Series Fall Session

October 14-16, 2026

Dublin

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Finnegan IP Summit 2026: Celebrating an Inclusive Talent Pipeline

August 11-13, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: June 2026

July 28, 2026

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

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