Federal Circuit Says PTAB’s Delay Is Not a Reviewable “Shenanigan” Under APA

In Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 24-1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec 23, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s holding of obviousness and upheld the Board’s authority to institute the proceeding.

Ford filed IPRs seeking cancelation of three Ethanol Boosting Systems (“EBS”) patents related to optimized fuel management systems. The Board initially denied institution after adopting a construction of key terms from a parallel District Court proceeding. EBS appealed the District Court’s construction and Ford petitioned for re-hearing pending the resolution of EBS’s appeal. After the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s claim construction, the Board instituted IPR and invalidated the EBS patents on obviousness grounds. EBS again appealed, arguing that the Board’s delay between Ford’s petition for rehearing and the Board’s grant of the petition—a 15-month delay—was an “ultra vires stay” that exceeded the Board’s statutory authority.

On this subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit sided with the PTAB on all issues. The Court saw EBS’s challenge to the “stay” as a “challenge to the propriety of the [IPR] institution” noting that overturning IPR institution would require the Court to “uproot the finality of the Board’s reconsideration decision.” The Court explained that institution decisions are only reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) if the Board acted “beyond its statutory authority—[which] would constitute a ‘shenanigan’ that may be properly reviewable” under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA”). The Board’s stay here was not a reviewable “shenanigan” because it was “closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office’s decision to initiate IPR,” which “without more, do not overcome § 314(d)’s bar.” The Court also affirmed the Board’s rulings on the merits.