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

Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition, Confirming Non-Appealability of Institution Decisions Despite Parties’ Agreement to First Arbitrate Patent Validity

September 22, 2021

Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In In re: MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., No. 2021-146 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2021), the Federal Circuit denied MaxPower’s petition for mandamus seeking review of four PTAB decisions to institute IPR proceedings despite an agreement to first arbitrate patent validity.

MaxPower petitioned for mandamus review of the PTAB’s decisions to institute four IPR proceedings, arguing its agreement to arbitrate patent validity foreclosed PTAB review. A panel majority denied MaxPower’s petition. It first reasoned MaxPower had not established jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine: “If MaxPower is truly not raising matters that are absolutely barred from appellate review under [35 U.S.C. §] 314(d) . . . , then MaxPower can meaningfully raise its arbitration-related challenged after the [PTAB]’s final written decisions.” The majority then rejected MaxPower’s argument that its appeals were authorized under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1), which provides for appeals from certain arbitration-related orders. The Court found the PTAB’s decisions did not fall within any of the express statutory categories. Finally, the majority found MaxPower failed to show its mandamus petition was more than a means to avoid the statutory prohibition on appellate review of agency institution decisions. It noted MaxPower failed to show the PTAB clearly exceeded its authority because (i) the PTAB is not bound by a private contract between parties; and (ii) MaxPower failed to show how 35 U.S.C. § 294 deprives the PTAB of the authority to institute a review “when the statute does not by its terms task the agency with enforcing private arbitration agreements.”

Judge O’Malley dissented-in-part, finding the majority’s denial of a writ of mandamus in this case allows the PTAB to “add a new caveat to Congress’s clear instruction that agreements to arbitrate patent validity shall be ‘valid, irrevocable, and enforceable’—i.e., except during inter partes review.” In her view, 35 U.S.C. § 294 prevents PTAB review, at least until an arbitrator has determined the issue is not one for arbitration. And MaxPower has no other adequate method of obtaining relief because interlocutory appeals from institution decisions are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 314, and mandamus relief is “the only way to prevent the reviews from proceeding.”

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), validity

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Sydney R. Kestle
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4241
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2021 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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 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

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