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

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reinforces Injury-in-Fact Requirement in Appeals from Post-Grant Proceedings

June 10, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Indefiniteness of the Term “About”

June 10, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026

June 8, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC Central Division Revokes Patent Covering Covid-19 Treatment Remdesivir

8 June 2026

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 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