SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee : For the Love of Administrative Efficiency

Author: Max Mauldin*
Editor: Jeff T. Watson

On the same day the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft, the Court also granted a petition for writ of certiorari in SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee. The question presented in that petition is whether the PTAB must issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner in an IPR petition or only some of the challenged claims. 

SAS, the IPR petitioner, presents the question as one of statutory interpretation.  The relevant statute states that the PTAB “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). The threshold for instituting an IPR is whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). SAS argues that every claim in the original petition should be addressed in the final written decision if this threshold is met.

The USPTO argues that the PTAB should not be required to address non-instituted claims in final written decisions. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding a distinction between the threshold decision to institute and the final written decision. More specifically, the Federal Circuit noted that the final written decision statutory subsection describes “claims challenged by the petitioner,” whereas the institution decision statutory subsection describes “claims challenged in the petition.” According to the Federal Circuit, the differing language of these two subsections implies a distinction and does not foreclose a claim-by-claim approach.

If the PTAB must issue a final written decision on each claim regardless of the institution decision, those decisions will be appealable. If non-instituted claims continue to not be addressed in final written decisions, arguments about those claims must be heard in district court.

 

*Max Mauldin is a Summer Associate at Finnegan

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: