No. 23-135

Intel Corporation, et al. v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2023-08-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-procedure-act agency-rulemaking inter-partes-review judicial-review patent patent-and-trademark-office patent-review statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Immigration Patent Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes review of PTO rules setting standards governing IPR institution decisions

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress established inter partes review (IPR) to provide an efficient administrative alternative to litigation for challenging the validity of dubious patents. The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has authority to decide whether to institute an IPR to review a challenged patent and has delegated that authority to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Section 314(d) of Title 35 provides that “(t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review ... Shall be final and nonappealable.” Petitioners brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging a PTO rule that has curtailed access to IPR by setting restrictive, non-statutory standards the Board must apply in deciding whether to institute an IPR. Petitioners do not challenge any particular “determination ... whether to institute an [IPR],” but rather seek prospective relief setting aside the challenged rule as contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The Federal Circuit held that § 314(d) precludes review of those claims. The question presented is whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which bars judicial review of “[t]he determination ... whether to institute an inter partes review,” applies even when no institution decision is challenged to preclude review of PTO rules setting standards governing institution decisions. @

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-11-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-11-27
2023-11-09
Brief of respondent Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office in opposition filed.
2023-10-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 9, 2023.
2023-10-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 16, 2023 to November 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-09-14
2023-09-14
Letter from counsel for respondent Apple Inc. submitted pursuant to Rule 12.6 filed.
2023-09-14
Letter from counsel for respondent Google LLC submitted pursuant to Rule 12.6 filed.
2023-09-14
2023-09-14
Letter from counsel for respondent Cisco Systems, Inc. submitted pursuant to Rule 12.6 filed.
2023-09-14
Brief amici curiae of Computer and Communications Industry Association, et al. filed.
2023-08-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 16, 2023.
2023-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 14, 2023 to October 16, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-08-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 14, 2023)
2023-06-05
Application (22A1043) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 10, 2023.
2023-05-31
Application (22A1043) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 11, 2023 to August 10, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

ACT | The App Association
Brian Eugene Scarpelli — Amicus
Brian Eugene Scarpelli — Amicus
Computer and Communications Industry Association; High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joshua Stephen LandauComputer and Communications Industry Association, Amicus
Joshua Stephen LandauComputer and Communications Industry Association, Amicus
Google LLC
Nathan Kip KelleyPerkins Coie LLP, Respondent
Nathan Kip KelleyPerkins Coie LLP, Respondent
Intel Corporation, et al.
Catherine Mary Agnes CarrollWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Petitioner
Catherine Mary Agnes CarrollWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Petitioner
Leading Innovators
Mark Simon DaviesOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Mark Simon DaviesOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Vidal, Katherine K.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent