May 19, 2022
Authored and Edited by Emma N. Ng; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. Guards, Inc., No. 2021-1759 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2022), the Federal Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) time-bar determination and dismissed Atlanta Gas’s appeal.
This case was before the Federal Circuit for the third time. In Bennett I, the Court held that Atlanta Gas should have been time barred and remanded with instructions to dismiss the IPR. Before the Board acted on the Court’s mandate, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), which held that parties cannot appeal time-bar determinations. In Bennett II, the Court affirmed the Board’s unpatentability decision, did not address the time-bar issue, and remanded to the Board to consider and finalize its sanctions order. On remand, the Board issued a sanctions order, vacating the unpatentability determination, and terminating the proceeding.
On appeal, Atlanta Gas argued that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to terminate the IPR because it was purely a sanctions decision reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). The Court rejected this argument, explaining that the Board’s decision was not purely a sanctions decision; instead, the decision was “multi-faceted,” considering not only Bennett’s request for sanctions, but also re-considering the time-bar issue in light of the developments in USPTO policy. Specifically, in its initial decision, the Board determined that the time-bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) had not been triggered by the service of the complaint in a district court action that was later dismissed without prejudice. Subsequent developments in the case law and corresponding USPTO policy made clear that the time-bar clock is triggered by the service of a complaint even if the action is later dismissed. Because the Board’s decision was based on a re-evaluation of its time-bar determination and not a pure sanctions decision, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court also rejected Atlanta Gas’s argument that the Board’s decision violated the Court’s mandate because the Court did not address the time-bar issue in Bennett II and the Board retains the authority to reconsider its decisions regarding institution.
Judge Newman dissented, arguing that the vacatur of the final written decision and termination of the IPR was a sanction, which the Court has jurisdiction to review.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), rules and rules of practice
Copyright © 2022 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.