It’s “Quite Clear” that USPTO’s Decision To Not Institute an IPR Is “Final and Nonappealable”

, Read

It’s “Quite Clear” that USPTO’s Decision To Not Institute an IPR Is “Final and Nonappealable”

Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Lee

Addressing whether an area court has subject material jurisdiction more than a decision to deny an inter partes review produced by the U . s . States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the U.S. District Court for that Eastern District of Virginia granted the PTO’s motion to dismiss for insufficient subject material jurisdiction, discovering that the word what from the pertinent statute is “quite clear” that the determination to not institute an IPR is final and nonappealable. Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Lee, Civil Action No. 3:13CV699 (E.D. Veterans administration., Apr. 18, 2014) (Payne, J.).

Complaintant Dominion Dealer Solutions (Dominion) was sued inside a California district court by AutoAlert, Corporation. for allegedly infringing five patents. In reaction, Dominion filed petitions seeking IPR for individuals five patents. Dominion also filed a motion to remain the patent violation litigation within the California district court cellular the pending IPR petitions. The stay was granted “pending final exhaustion of pending IPR proceedings, including any appeals.” Subsequently, the PTAB denied Dominion’s petitions for IPR. Dominion filed demands for rehearing on its petitions, that have been also denied.

Dominion then filed an action inside a Virginia district court underneath the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), alleging the PTAB’s decisions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and unlike law. The PTO filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient subject material jurisdiction.

In resolving the PTO’s motion, the Virginia district court construed two statutes: the area of the APA the Top Court has mentioned “confers an over-all reason for action” to object judicial overview of agency action, and also the area of the Leahy-Cruz America Invents Act (AIA) that governs the institution of inter partes review through the PTO.

While recognizing the APA generally provides the opportunity to obtain judicial overview of agency action, a legal court noted the APA does established several limitations around the grant of judicial review. One particular limitation happens when other statutes preclude judicial review. Figuring out whether and how much a specific statute precludes judicial review, courts consider the express language from the statute, along with the structure from the statutory plan, its objections, its legislative background and the character from the administrative action involved. A legal court discovered that there’s a powerful presumption underneath the APA that Congress meant to permit judicial overview of agency actions.

The Virginia district court discovered that the AIA rebutted the strong presumption, and rejected Dominion’s arguments otherwise. A legal court discovered that the wording from the AIA-that “[t]he determination through the Director whether or not to institute an inter partes review under this will be final and nonappealable”-was “quite obvious.”

A legal court rejected Dominion’s argument that it is situation in Virginia district court wasn’t an appeal, because to the fact that Dominion made the tactical decision to provide its complaint being an “appeal” to prevent triggering the finish from the remain in the California district court.

A legal court also rejected Dominion’s argument the statute didn’t preclude an attract the Virginia district court from the PTAB’s construction from the relevant legal standards. A legal court noted this argument was belied through the legislative good reputation for the AIA, which signifies that Congress intended the AIA and also the IPR tactic to decrease the level of patent litigation within the federal courts and streamline the patent administration process.

A legal court further rejected Dominion’s argument the “final and nonappealable” language only precluded decisions to allow IPR and it was not relevant to decisions denying IPR. A legal court again relied upon the express language from the AIA itself, finding Dominion’s position “clearly untenable.”


Leave a Reply