Whether the PTAB panel violated the Administrative Procedure Act by refusing to admit known indemnity agreements into evidence when deciding whether the IPR petitions were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) is an administrative court that conducts Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) trials and has statutory authority to cancel previously-allowed patent claims. The PTAB renders decisions through panels of three or more Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”). Very few PTAB panel decisions have been designated “Precedential,” and all non-precedential decisions are non-binding on future cases or other PTAB panels. Wi-Fi One contends that Broadcom’s PTAB petitions below were time-barred by 35 U.S.C. §315(b), and the PTAB’s decisions were rendered in violation of Wi-Fi One’s procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The PTAB panel decisions below have not been designated “Precedential.” The questions presented are: 1. Did the appellate panel below err by disregarding 5 U.S.C. §706 and instead applying the Federal Circuit’s “abuse of discretion” standard of review (which the Federal Circuit borrowed from appeals of district court discretionary orders) when it reviewed whether the PTAB panel below violated procedures required by the APA? 2. Did the PTAB panel below violate procedural requirements of the APA by refusing to admit known indemnity agreements into evidence when deciding whether Broadcom’s inter partes review petitions are time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b)? i