- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Patents
- Date Filed: April 20, 2020
- Case #: 18-916
- Judge(s)/Court Below: GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined except as to PartIII –C. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (Board) for inter partes review to reconsider the validity of Respondent’s patents. The Board instituted review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, despite Respondent’s argument that Petitioner’s challenge was untimely under §315(b). The proceedings resulted in thirteen of Respondent’s patent claims to be cancelled. Respondent’s appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because §314(d) states that determinations to institute review “shall be final and nonappealable.” In light of Wifi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F. 3d 1364 (2018), holding that §315(b) is appealable, the court granted a rehearing and held that “the Board erred by instituting review.” The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that §314(d) precludes judicial review of the application of the time limitation under §315(b). The Court previously held in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, that §314(b) bars review of matters “closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the institution decision.” 579 U.S. ___ (2016). The Court stated that challenges under §315(b) fall squarely under that category. Furthermore, this conclusion is in line with Congress’s intent to promote efficiency and to prioritize patentability over timeliness. VACATED and REMANDED.