Supreme Court Grants Cert In SAS To Decide Required Scope Of PTAB Decision

23 May 2017 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee, where it has been asked to decide whether the PTAB is statutorily required “to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner.” The Court’s decision will be important to IPR petitioners and patent owners alike, and could impact the scope of IPR proceedings, the PTAB’s ability to complete them within the statutory time period, and–indirectly–the scope of estoppel that could arise from an IPR proceeding.

What Does The Statute Require?

The statute at issue is 35 USC § 318 (a) which states:

(a)Final Written Decision.—
If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added under section 316(d).

The underlying Federal Circuit decision was issued in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,  where the court found that SAS’s argument that “the Board erred by not addressing in the final written decision every ’936 patent claim SAS challenged in its IPR petition” was foreclosed by its then-recent decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. In that case, the court determined that 35 USC § 318 only requires the PTAB to render a decision on “claims as to which review was granted,” i.e., claims as to which inter partes review was instituted.

The Federal Circuit found support for its decision in differences between the phrase “any patent claim challenged by the petitioner” in § 318(a) and the reference to “claims challenged in the petition” in 35 USC § 314(a), which states:

(a)Threshold.—
The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

The court also reasoned:

[T]he statute would make very little sense if it required the Board to issue final decisions addressing patent claims for which inter partes review had not been initiated.

Please see this article for a more complete discussion of the Federal Circuit decision in Synopsis.

When Will The Supreme Court Decide?

I won’t attempt to predict the Court’s decision without the benefit of full briefing–and even then would be going out on a limb–but if this case follows a typical schedule, it will be argued during the Court’s next term and decided by June 2018.

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