Court Won't Review USPTO Denial of Inter Partes Review

21 April 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

In a decision issued on April 18, 2014, Judge Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the USPTO’s motion to dismiss the case brought by Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC to challenge the USPTO’s decisions denying petitions to institute inter partes review of five patents granted to Autoalert, Inc. As I predicted in this article, the decision does not come as a surprise in view of  the statutory language of 35 USC § 314 and the court’s previous decision dismissing Versata’s challenge of the USPTO’s decision to institute post grant review of its patent.

Dominion’s Complaint

According to Dominion’s complaint, on October 1, 2012, Autoalert, Inc. sued Dominion for infringement of patents directed to “systems and methods for assessing and managing financial transactions.” On March 28, 2013, Dominion filed petitions for inter partes review of the five patents in suit. Dominion also sought a stay of the district court proceedings, which was granted on May 22, 2013. On August 12 and 15, 2013, the USPTO denied the petitions.

According to the complaint, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) improperly substituted its own judgment and its own understanding of the cited references for that provided by Dominion’s expert in the declarations submitted in support of the petitions. Dominion asserts that the USPTO violated the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC § 706(2)(A) and (C)) by denying the petitions in the face of “unrebutted evidence.”

The District Court Decision

The district court cited 35 USC § 314(d) of the inter partes review statue, which  includes the following provision:

(d) No Appeal.—The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.

The court rejected Dominion’s arguments that this case was not an “appeal” (e.g., not an appeal to the Federal Circuit), both because Dominion had characterized the proceeding as an “appeal” to the California court where the original patent litigation had been stayed and in its papers filed in the proceeding and because the case, at essence, was an appeal of the USPTO’s actions.

The court also rejected Dominion’s efforts to distinguish the Versata case, where the district court held that Versata could not challenge the USPTO’s decision to institute post grant review of its patents.

[T]he plain language of the statute, “the determination . . . whether to institute an inter partes review,” must necessarily encompass both potential determinations [e.g., decisions to grant and decisions denying inter partes review'].

Will The Federal Circuit Have The Final Say?


Perhaps ironically, the Federal Circuit is likely to have the final say in both this case and Versata, and likely will conclude that there is no judicial review of a USPTO PTAB decision to grant or deny a petition to institute inter partes review or post-grant review. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if the court leaves open the possibility for review in unusual circumstances.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services