You are on page 1of 42

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF OPINION

OPINION FILED:

The attached opinion announcing the decision of the court in your case was filed on the date indicated above.

No costs were taxed in these appeals.

Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk
may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner


Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

cc: Erika Arner


Peter J. Ayers
Erik Paul Belt
Thomas Anthony Broughan III
Kakoli Caprihan
Gregory A. Castanias
Douglas Aaron Cawley
Paul D. Clement
David B. Cochran
Jeremy Cooper Doerre
Mark D. Fowler
Kia Lynn Freeman
Mark R. Freeman
Eugene M. Gelernter
Joshua Goldberg
Kevin Goldman
Joseph Guerra
Walter E. Hanley Jr.
James Martin Heintz
Benjamin T. Hickman
George W. Hicks Jr.
Matthew John Hult
Robert M. Isackson
Sean Daniel Jordan
Sopan Joshi
Nathan K. Kelley
Thomas W. Krause
Jeffrey Paul Kushan
Jeffrey A. Lamken
Mark W. Lauroesch
Janine Marie Lopez
Nathan Nobu Lowenstein
Frances Lynch
John Marlott
Dominic E. Massa
Israel Sasha Mayergoyz
Steven W. Miller
Richard Alan Neifeld
Stanley Joseph Panikowski III
Melissa N. Patterson
Donald Puckett
Robert Joseph Rando
Kevin H. Rhodes
Nicolas Riley
Irena Royzman
Katie Saxton
Jonathan H. Steinberg
Ksenia Takhistova
Doreen Yatko Trujillo
Daniel C. Tucker
Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Jason Vitullo
Kenneth J. Weatherwax
Scott Weidenfeller
Mark L. Whitaker

15-1944, 15-1945, 15-1946 - Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation


United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2013-00601, IPR2013-00602, IPR2013-00636
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2018

United S tates Court of Appeals


for the F ederal Circuit
______________________

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1944
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00601.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2018

2 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1945
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00602.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1946
______________________
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 3

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00636.
______________________

Decided: J an u ar y 8, 2018
______________________

D OU GLAS A ARON C AWLE Y, McKool Sm it h , P C, Da llas,


TX, a rgu ed for a ppella n t. Also r epresen t ed by D ONALD
P U CKE TT , Nelson Bu m ga rdn er P C, F ort Wort h , TX; P E TE R
J . AYE RS , La w Office of P et er J . Ayers, Au st in , TX.

D OMI NIC E. M ASSA, Wilm er Cu t ler P ick erin g H ale an d


Dorr LLP , Bost on , MA, a rgu ed for a ppellee. Also repr e-
sent ed by K E VIN G OLDMAN , J AN IN E M ARIE L OP E Z,
ZACH ARY P ICCOL OMIN I , K ATI E S AXTON .

M ARK R. F RE E MAN , Appella t e St aff, Civil Division ,


Un it ed St a t es Depar t m en t of J u st ice, Wa sh in gt on , DC,
a rgu ed for in t erven or. Also r epresen t ed by J OYCE R.
B RAN DA, M E LISSA N. P ATTE RSON , N ICOLAS R ILE Y; N ATH AN
K. K E LLE Y, K AKOLI C AP RIH AN , B E N J AMI N T. H ICKMAN ,
T H OMAS W. K RAU SE , F RAN CE S L YN CH , S COTT
W E IDE NF E LLE R , Office of t h e Solicit or, Un it ed St a t es
P a t en t a nd Tr adem a rk Office, Alexa n dr ia , VA.

J E RE MY C OOP E R D OE RRE , Tillm a n Wrigh t P LLC,


Ch ar lot t e, N C, as am icu s cu r iae.

E U GE NE M. G E LE RNTE R , P a t t erson Belkn ap Webb &


Tyler LL P , New York, NY, for am icu s cu riae New York
Int ellect ual P r opert y La w Associa tion . Also repr esen t ed
by I RE N A R OYZMAN , J ASON VITU LLO ; W AL TE R E. H ANLE Y,
J R ., K SE NI A T AKH ISTOVA, An drews Ku rt h Ken yon LLP ,
New Yor k, NY; R OBE RT M. I SACKSON , Ven able LLP , New
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2018

4 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

York, NY; R OBE RT J . R ANDO , Th e Ra n do La w F irm P .C.,


Syosset , N Y.

D ORE E N YATKO T RU J I LLO , Sau l Ewin g LLP , Wayn e,


P A, for a m icu s cu r iae F edera l Cir cu it Ba r Associa t ion .
Also repr esen t ed by R ICH ARD A LAN N E IF E LD , Neifeld IP
La w, P C, Alexan dr ia, VA.

K IA L YNN F RE E MAN , McCa rt er & En glish , LLP , Bos-


t on , MA, for a m icu s cu ria e Bost on P a t en t L aw Associa -
t ion. Also repr esen t ed by E RIK P AU L B E LT .

S AU RABH VISH N U BH AKAT , Texa s A&M Un iversit y


Sch ool of Law, F ort Wort h , TX, for a m ici cu riae An n
Ba rt ow, Mich a el Risch , Gregory Dolin , Ted M. Sich elm a n ,
Ch rist opher Mich ael H olm an , Sa u r abh Vish n u bh ak at ,
J ay P . Kesa n, Irin a D. Ma n t a, Ada m Mossoff.

E RI KA ARN E R , F in n egan , H en derson , F a ra bow, Ga r-


ret t & Dun ner , LLP , Rest on , VA, for am icu s cu ria e Am er-
ican Int ellect u al P r opert y L aw Associat ion . Also
represen t ed by D AN I E L C. T U CKE R ; J OSH U A G OLDBE RG ,
Wash ingt on , DC; M ARK L. W H ITAKE R , Mor rison & F oer -
st er LL P , Wa sh in gt on , DC.

K E NN E TH J . W E ATH E RWAX, Lowen st ein & Weat h er wax


LLP , L os An geles, CA, for am icu s cu riae Biot ech n ology
Inn ova t ion Or ga n izat ion . Also r epresen t ed by N ATH AN
N OBU L OWE N STE I N , J ON ATH AN H . S TE I NBE RG .

S E AN D ANIE L J ORDAN , J ackson Walker LLP , Au st in ,


TX, for am icu s cu r ia e West er n Geco LL C.

J E F F RE Y A. L AMKE N , MoloLa m k en LLP , Wash in gt on ,


DC, for am icu s cu r iae Elm 3DS In n ova t ion s, LL C.

G RE GORY A. C ASTANI AS , J on es Da y, Wa sh in gt on , DC,


for a m icu s cu r ia e In t ellect u al P r opert y Own ers Associa -
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 5

t ion. Also repr esen t ed by D AVID B. C OCH RAN , Clevelan d,


OH ; J OH N M ARLOTT , I SRAE L S ASH A M AYE RGOYZ, Ch ica go,
IL; M ARK W. L AU ROE SCH , In t ellect u al P ropert y Own ers
Associa t ion , Wash in gt on , DC; S TE VE N W. M ILLE R , P r oct er
& Gam ble Com pan y, Cin cin n a t i, OH ; K EVIN H . R H ODE S ,
3M In n ova tive P ropert ies Com pan y, St . P au l, MN.

S TANLE Y J OSE P H P ANI KOWSKI , III, DLA P iper US LLP ,


San Diego, CA, for am ici cu ria e Ora cle Cor pora t ion ,
Ora cle OTC Su bsidiary, LL C. Also repr es en t ed by M ARK
D. F OWLE R , East P a lo Alt o, CA; J AME S M ARTIN H E I NTZ,
Rest on , VA.

J OSE P H G U E RRA, Sidley Au st in LLP , Wash in gt on , DC,


for a m icus cu riae Apple In c. Also represen t ed by T H OMAS
AN TH ON Y B ROU GH AN , III, J E F F RE Y P AU L K U SH AN .

P AU L D. C LE ME N T , Kir kla n d & Ellis L LP , Wash in gt on ,


DC, for a m icu s cu r ia e In t el Corpora t ion . Also r epresen t ed
by G E ORGE W. H ICKS , J R .; S OP AN J OSH I , Ch icago, IL;
M ATTH E W J OH N H U LT , In t el Cor pora t ion , Sa n t a Cla ra ,
CA.
______________________

Befor e P ROST , Ch ief J u d ge, N E WMAN , L OU RI E ,


B RYSON , 1 D YK , M OORE , O’M ALLE Y, R E YNA, W ALLACH ,
T ARANTO , C H E N , H U GH E S , a n d S TOLL , Cir cu it J u d ges.
Opinion for t h e cou rt filed by Cir cu it J u d ge R E YN A, in
wh ich Ch ief J u d ge P ROST a n d Cir cu it J u d ges N E WMAN ,
M OORE , O’M ALLE Y, W ALLACH , T ARAN TO , C H E N ,
an d S TOLL join .
Con cu r rin g opin ion filed by Circu it J u d ge O’M ALLE Y.

1 Cir cu it J u dge Br yson assu m ed sen ior st at u s on


J an ua ry 7, 2013.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2018

6 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

Dissen t in g opin ion filed by Circu it J u d ge H U GH E S , in


which Cir cu it J u d ges L OU RIE , B RYSON , an d D YK join .
R E YNA, Cir cu it J u d ge.
Con gr ess h a s proh ibit ed t h e Dir ect or of t h e Un it ed
St a t es P a t en t a n d Tr adem a rk Office fr om in st it u tin g
in t er par t es r eview if t h e pet it ion r equ est in g t h a t review
is filed m ore t h an on e year aft er t h e pet it ion er, r ea l par t y
in in t erest , or privy of t h e pet it ion er is ser ved wit h a
com pla in t for pa t en t in fr in gem en t . 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Con gr ess also pr ovided t h a t t h e Dir ect or’s det erm in a t ion
“wh et h er t o in st it u t e an in t er pa rt es r eview u n der t h is
sect ion sh all be fin al a n d n on a ppea la ble.” Id . § 314(d).
Th e qu est ion befor e u s is wh et h er t h e ba r on ju dicial
review of inst it u t ion decision s in § 314(d) a pplies t o t im e-
bar det erm in a t ion s m ade u n der § 315(b). In Ach a tes
Referen ce P u blish in g, In c. v. Apple In c., 803 F .3d 652, 658
(F ed. Cir. 2015), a pan el of t h is cou rt h eld in t h e a ffirm a-
t ive t h at a § 315(b) t im e-bar det erm in at ion is fin al an d
n ona ppea la ble u n der § 314(d). Toda y, t h e cou rt revisit s
t h is qu est ion en ban c.
We recogn ize t h e st r on g pr esu m pt ion in fa vor of ju di-
cial review of a gen cy a ct ion s. To overcom e t h is presu m p-
t ion, Con gr ess m u st clea rly an d con vin cin gly in dica t e it s
in t en t t o proh ibit ju dicial review. We fin d n o clea r an d
con vincing in dicat ion of su ch con gr ession a l in t en t . We
t h erefor e h old t h a t t h e t im e-ba r det er m in at ion s u n der
§ 315(b) ar e a ppea lable, over ru le Ach a tes’s con t ra ry
con clusion , an d rem a n d t h ese cases t o t h e pa n el for
fur t h er proceedin gs con sist en t wit h t h is opin ion .
I. B ACKGROU N D
A. Am erica In ven t s Act
In 2011, Con gr ess pa ssed t h e Lea h y-Sm it h Am erica
Invent s Act (“AIA”), wh ich cr eat ed in t er par t es r eview
(“IP R”) proceedin gs. S ee P u b. L. N o. 112-29, § 6(a )–(c),
125 St a t. 284, 299–305 (2011); 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. IP R
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 7

a nd ot h er post -gra n t proceedin gs ar e in t en ded t o be qu ick


a nd cost effect ive alt er n a t ives t o lit iga tion for t h ird pa r-
t ies t o cha llen ge t h e pa t en t a bility of issu ed claim s. H .R.
Rep. No. 112-98, pt . 1, a t 48 (2011); 157 Con g. Rec. 2,710
(2011) (st a t em en t of Sen . Gr assley). Sect ion s 311 a n d 312
of Tit le 35 est ablish wh o m ay pet it ion for IP R, t h e
gr oun ds for review in a n IP R, t h e ea rliest perm it t ed t im e
for a pet it ion for an IP R, a n d t h e requ ir em en t s of t h e
pet it ion for an IP R. U n der § 311, a per son wh o is n ot t h e
owner of a pat en t m ay pet it ion t h e Direct or t o in st it u t e
IP R of on e or m ore pa t en t cla im s on perm it t ed grou n ds,
a llegin g un pa t en t a bilit y on cert ain prior art bases. Sec-
t ion 312 provides t h a t t h e pet it ion m u st , am on g ot h er
t h in gs, “iden t if[y], in wr it in g a n d wit h pa rt icu la r it y, ea ch
claim ch allen ged, t h e grou n ds on wh ich t h e ch allen ge t o
ea ch claim is ba sed, a n d t h e eviden ce t h a t su pport s t h e
gr oun ds for t h e ch a llen ge t o ea ch claim.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 312(a )(3). Sect ion 313 pr ovides t h a t t h e pat en t own er
m a y file a pr elim in a ry r espon se t o t h e pet it ion .
In § 314, su bsect ion (a ) pr escribes t h e t h r esh old “de-
t er m in [at ion ]” requ ired for t h e Direct or t o in st it u t e: a
“r eason able lik elih ood” t h at t h e pet it ion er will su cceed in
it s pa t en t abilit y ch allen ge t o a t lea st on e of t h e ch a l-
len ged pa t en t cla im s. Su bsect ion s (b) a n d (c) pr escribe
t h e t im in g of a n d n ot ice r equ ir em en t s for t h e in st it u t ion
decision. An d § 314(d) addresses ju dicial r eview of t h e
Direct or ’s IP R in st it u t ion det erm in at ion u n der § 314.
Specifica lly, § 314(d) provides t h a t “[t ]h e det erm in a t ion
by t h e Dir ect or wh et h er t o in st it u t e an in t er pa rt es re-
view un d er th is section sh a ll be fin a l an d n on a ppea la ble.”2
(em ph a sis added).

2 Th e Direct or h a s delega t ed t h e au t h orit y t o in st i-


t u t e IP R t o t h e P a t en t Tr ial a n d Appea l Boa rd (“t h e
Boa rd”). 37 C.F .R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. We h a ve h eld t h is
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2018

8 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

Th e r em a in der of t h e IP R-r ela t ed provision s of t h e


AIA go beyon d t h e prelim in ar y procedu r a l r equ ir em en t s
a nd t h e prelim in a ry det erm in at ion rega rdin g likely
u npa t en t a bilit y. Sect ion 315, for exam ple, gover n s t h e
relat ionsh ip bet ween IP Rs an d ot h er pr oceedin gs con -
du ct ed out side of t h e IP R proces s. Th e provision a t issu e
in t h is a ppea l, § 315(b), provides t h a t “[a]n in t er pa rt es
review m ay n ot be in st it u t ed if t h e pet it ion requ est in g t h e
pr oceedin g is filed m ore t h a n 1 year a ft er t h e dat e on
which t he pet it ion er, rea l par t y in in t erest , or privy of t h e
pet it ion er is served wit h a com plain t a llegin g in fr in ge-
m en t of t h e pat en t .” Th is on e-yea r t im e ba r does n ot
a pply t o a requ est for join der u n der § 315(c).
Sect ion 316 a ddresses t h e “con du ct of” IP Rs, in clu din g
a m en dm en t s of t h e pa t en t an d eviden t iar y st a n da rds.
Sect ion 317 a ddr esses set t lem en t .
If t he Direct or det er m in es t o in st it u t e IP R, in m ost
ca ses, t h e Boar d m u s t “issu e a fin a l wr it t en decision wit h
respect t o t h e pat en t a bilit y of an y pa t en t cla im ch a llen ged
by t h e pet it ion er,” a s well a s a n y n ew claim s a dded du rin g
IP R. 35 U.S.C. § 318(a ). An y pa rt y t o IP R “dissat isfied”
wit h t h e final writ t en decision m ay a ppea l t h a t decision t o
t h is cou rt . Id . §§ 141(c), 319.
B. Ach a tes
In 2015, a pa n el of t h is cou r t decided t h e sa m e issu e
befor e u s t oday: wh et h er § 314(d) preclu des ju dicial
review of § 315(b) t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion s. In Ach a tes,
t h e Boa rd ca n celed cert ain pa t en t cla im s t h r ou gh IP R.
803 F .3d at 653. On a ppea l, t h e pat en t own er a rgu ed t h a t
t h e Boa rd a ct ed ou t side of it s st a t u t ory a u t h or it y by

delegat ion t o be con st it u t ion ally an d st at u t orily per m issi-


ble. Eth icon E n d o-S u r gery, In c. v. Covid ien L P , 812 F .3d
1023, 1033 (F ed. Cir. 2016).
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 9

in st it u t ing IP R on a pet it ion t h a t wa s t im e-ba rr ed u n der


§ 315(b). Id . Th e pan el r eject ed t h is a rgu m en t , h oldin g
t h a t “35 U .S.C. § 314(d) proh ibit s t h is cou rt from review-
in g t he Boa rd’s det er m in a t ion t o in it ia t e IP R proceedin gs
based on her assessm en t of t h e t im e ba r of § 315(b), even
if such assessm en t is recon sider ed du rin g t h e m er it s
ph ase of pr oceedin gs a n d r est at ed a s par t of t h e fin al
writ t en decision .” Id . at 658. Accordin g t o t h e pa n el, t h e
Boa rd’s m isin t er pret a t ion of § 315(b) does n ot con st it u t e
u ltr a vires a gen cy act ion t h a t m igh t ot h erwise su pport
ju dicial r eview. Id . a t 658–59. Con clu din g t h a t t h is cou r t
is ba rred from r eviewin g § 315(b) decision s, t h e pa n el
dism issed for la ck of ju r isdict ion . Id . a t 659.
C. Cu ozzo
Subsequ en t t o ou r decision in Ach a tes, t h e Su pr em e
Cou rt decided Cu ozzo S peed Tech n ologies, LL C v. Lee, 136
S. Ct . 2131 (2016). In Cu ozzo, t h e Cou rt a ddressed
whet her § 314(d) ba rs ju dicial r eview of det erm in a t ion s
regar din g com plian ce wit h § 312(a)(3), i.e., wh et h er t h e
pet it ion iden t ified wit h su fficien t pa rt icu la rit y “ea ch
claim ch allen ged, t h e grou n ds on wh ich t h e ch allen ge t o
ea ch claim is ba sed, a n d t h e eviden ce t h a t su pport s t h e
gr oun ds for t h e ch a llen ge t o ea ch claim .” Id . a t 2139–42.
Th e Su pr em e Cou rt ’s a n alysis of § 314(d) began wit h
a recognit ion of t h e “‘st ron g pr esu m pt ion ’ in favor of
ju dicial review.” Id . a t 2140 (qu ot in g Ma ch Min in g, LLC
v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct . 1645, 1651 (2015)). Th e Cou rt ex-
pla in ed t ha t t h e presu m pt ion of ju dicial r eview “m ay be
over com e by ‘“clea r an d con vin cin g”’ in dica t ion s, dra wn
from ‘specific lan gu age,’ ‘specific legisla t ive h ist ory,’ an d
‘in feren ces of in t en t dr awn fr om t h e st at u t or y sch em e as a
whole,’ t h at Con gress in t en ded t o ba r r eview.” Id . (qu ot -
in g Block v. Cm ty. Nu tr ition In st., 467 U.S. 340, 349–50
(1984)).
Th e Su prem e Cou r t h eld t h at t h e presu m pt ion in fa-
vor of judicial r eview was over com e rega rdin g wh et h er a
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2018

10 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

pet it ion m et t h e requ irem en t s of § 312(a )(3). Id . a t 2142.


Th e Cou r t con sider ed t h e dispu t e abou t § 312(a)(3)’s
pa rt icu la rit y requ ir em en t t o be “an ordin ar y dispu t e” over
t h e Dir ect or’s in st it u t ion decision . Id . a t 2139. Th e Cou rt
con cluded t h at § 314(d) “m u st , a t t h e lea st , forbid a n
a ppea l t ha t a t t a ck s a ‘det er m in a t ion . . . wh et h er t o
in st it u t e’ review by r aisin g t h is kin d of lega l qu est ion an d
lit t le m ore.” Id . (alt era t ion in origin a l). Th e Cou rt spoke
of “t h e kin d of in it ial det erm in a t ion a t issu e h ere—t h a t
t h ere is a ‘r eason able lik elih ood’ t h a t t h e claim s ar e
u npa t en t a ble on t h e grou n ds as ser t ed.” Id . a t 2140
(qu ot ing § 314(a )). Th e Cou rt h eld:
wher e a pa t en t h older m erely ch a llen ges t h e P a -
t en t Office’s “det er m in [at ion ] t h at t h e in for m a t ion
pr esen t ed in t h e pet it ion . . . sh ows t h at t h ere is a
rea sona ble lik elih ood” of su ccess “wit h respect t o
a t lea st 1 of t h e cla im s ch a llen ged,” § 314(a), or
wher e a pa t en t h older grou n ds it s claim in a st a t -
u t e closely rela t ed t o t h a t decision t o in st it u t e in -
t er par t es review, § 314(d) ba rs ju dicial r eview.
Id. at 2142 (a lt er at ion s in or igin a l). Th e Su prem e Cou rt
n ot ed t h at t he qu est ion of wh et h er a pet it ion wa s plea ded
wit h pa rt icu la rit y am ou n t ed t o “lit t le m ore t h a n a ch a l-
len ge t o t he P a t en t Office’s con clu sion , u n der § 314(a ),
t h a t t he ‘in form at ion presen t ed in t h e pet it ion ’ war ra n t ed
review.” Id . In t h e Cou r t ’s wor ds, a ch a llen ge t o t h e
sufficiency of t h e “in form at ion presen t ed in t h e pet it ion ”
was a n ona ppea lable “m in e-ru n ” cla im . Id . at 2136, 2142.
Th e dissen t con t en ds t h a t t h e st a t u t or y la n gu a ge of
§ 314(d) “is absolu t e an d provides n o except ion s.” Dis-
sent ing Op. a t 8. Th e Su prem e Cou rt in Cu ozzo reject ed
t h is con t en t ion . Th e Cou r t m a de clear t h at it s h oldin g
was lim it ed; it expressly left open t h e pot en t ial for review,
u nder cer t a in circu m st a n ces, of decision s t o in st it u t e IP R.
F ir st , t h e Cou r t em ph asized t h a t it s “in t er pret at ion
a pplies wher e t h e gr ou n ds for a t t a ck in g t h e decision t o
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 11

in st it u t e in t er pa rt es review con sist of qu est ion s t h a t a re


closely t ied t o t h e applicat ion an d in t er pret at ion of st at -
u t es relat ed t o” t h e in st it u t ion decision , em ph asizin g t h e
“u n der t his sect ion ” lan gu age of § 314(d) in t h e cit at ion
t h a t follows. 136 S. Ct . a t 2141. In st a t in g it s h oldin g
(qu ot ed above), t h e Cou rt fu r t h er t ied t h e “closely relat ed”
la nguage t o t h e specific “r eason a ble likelih ood” det erm i-
n at ion m a de u n der § 314(a ). Id . a t 2142. Th e Cou r t
expressly declin ed t o “decide t h e precise effect of § 314(d)
on appeals t h a t im plica t e con st it u t ion a l qu est ion s, th a t
d epen d on oth er less closely r ela ted sta tu tes, or t h at pr e-
sent ot h er quest ion s of in t erpr et a t ion t h a t r ea ch , in t erm s
of scope an d im pact , well beyon d ‘th is section .’”3 Id . at
2141 (em ph ases added). Secon d, t h e Cou rt n ot ed t h a t it s
h oldin g does n ot “cat egor ica lly pr eclu de review of a fin al
decision wh er e a pet it ion fails t o give ‘su fficien t n ot ice’
such t h at t h ere is a du e process problem wit h t h e en t ir e
pr oceedin g.” Id . F in a lly, t h e Cou rt wr ot e t h at it s h oldin g
does not “en a ble t h e a gen cy t o a ct ou t side it s st at u t ory
lim it s by, for exam ple, ca n celin g a pa t en t cla im for ‘in def-
in it en ess un der § 112’ in in t er par t es review.” Id . at
2141–42. “Su ch ‘sh en an igan s,’” a ccor din g t o t h e Cou r t ,
“m ay be pr operly reviewa ble in t h e con t ext of § 319 a n d
u nder t h e Adm in ist r at ive P r ocedu re Act .” Id . at 2142.
D. Th e P resen t Appea l
In 2010, Telefon ak t iebolaget LM Ericsson (“Er icsson ”)
filed it s com pla in t for in fr in gem en t of U.S. P a t en t Nos.

3 Th e dissen t ’s r elia n ce on Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S.


404 (1977), is m ispla ced. U n like Cu ozzo, Briscoe does n ot
a ddress whet h er a st at u t ory sect ion pr eclu din g ju dicial
review of det er m in a t ion s “u n der t h is sect ion ” wou ld a pply
t o det erm ina t ion s m a de u n der an y ot h er sect ion of t h at
st a t u t e or a differ en t st at u t e.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2018

12 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

6,772,215 (“’215 pa t en t ”), 6,466,568 (“’568 pa t en t ”), an d


6,424,625 (“’625 pa ten t ”) in t h e Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict
Cou rt for t he Ea st er n Dist rict of Texa s again st m u lt iple
defen dan t s. 4 Th e case progressed t o a ju ry t rial, wh er e
t h e ju ry fou n d t h at t h e defen da n t s in fr in ged t h e asser t ed
claim s. Th is cou rt reviewed t h at det er m in a t ion . Erics-
son , In c. v. D-Lin k S ys., In c., 773 F .3d 1201 (F ed. Cir.
2014). Br oadcom Corpor at ion (“Broa dcom ”), t h e appellee
h ere, wa s n ever a defen dan t in t h at lit iga t ion .
In 2013, Broa dcom filed t h ree sepa ra t e pet it ion s for
IP R of t h e ’215, ’568, an d ’625 pa t en t s. 5 Wh en Broa dcom
filed t he IP R pet it ion s, Ericsson own ed t h ese pat en t s.
Dur in g t he pen den cy of t h e IP Rs, Er icsson t ra n sferr ed
owner sh ip of t h e t h r ee pat en t s t o Wi-F i On e, LLC (“Wi-
F i”).
In respon se t o Br oadcom ’s pet it ion s, Wi-F i ar gu ed
t h a t t h e Direct or was proh ibit ed from in st it u t in g review
on a ny of t h e t h r ee pet it ion s. Specifica lly, Wi-F i a r gu ed
t h a t t h e Direct or lacked a u t h orit y t o in st it u t e IP R u n der
§ 315(b) beca u se Broadcom wa s in pr ivit y wit h defen da n t s
t h a t were ser ved with a com plain t in t h e Ea st ern Dist rict
of Texas lit igat ion . Wi-F i alleged t h a t t h e IP R pet it ion s
were t h erefore t im e-ba rr ed u n der § 315(b) beca u se E rics-

4 Er icsson br ou gh t su it aga in st D-Lin k Syst em s,


Inc., Net gea r, In c., Acer , In c., Acer Am erica Cor p., Ga t e-
way, In c., Dell, In c., Belkin In t ern at ion al, In c., Tosh iba
Am erica Inform at ion Syst em s, In c., a n d Tosh iba Cor p.
Int el Corp. in t er ven ed a n d Er icsson a m en ded it s com -
pla in t t o a dd In t el a s a defen dan t . S ee Er icsson In c. v. D-
Lin k S ys., In c., No. 6:10-CV-473, 2013 WL 4046225, at
*24 n .1 (E .D. Tex. Au g. 6, 2013), a ff’d in pa r t, va ca ted in
pa r t, r ev’d in pa r t, 773 F .3d 1201 (F ed. Cir. 2014).
5 Th e t ech n ical a spect s of t h e pa t en t s a re n ot rele-
va n t t o t his opin ion .
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 13

son, t he pa t en t s’ previou s own er , h ad alrea dy asser t ed


in frin gem ent in distr ict cou r t a ga in st defen da n t s t h a t
were in privit y wit h pet it ion er Broa dcom m ore t h an a
yea r pr ior t o t h e filin g of t h e pet it ion s.
Wi-F i filed a m ot ion seek in g discover y rega rdin g in -
dem n it y a gr eem en t s, defen se agreem en t s, pa ym en t s, a n d
em a il or ot h er com m u n icat ion s bet ween Broa dcom a n d
t h e defen da n t s in t h e Ea st ern Dist r ict of Texas lit igat ion .
Th e Boa rd den ied bot h t h e m ot ion a n d Wi-F i’s su bsequ en t
m ot ion for reh ear in g. Wi-F i pet it ion ed t h is cou rt for a
writ of m an da m u s, wh ich we den ied. In r e Telefon a ktiebo-
la get LM Er icsson , 564 F . App’x 585 (F ed. Cir. 2014).
Th e Boa rd in st it u t ed IP R on t h e ch allen ged cla im s,
a nd issued F in al Wr it t en Decision s fin din g t h e ch a llen ged
claim s u n pat en t able. In t h e F in al Writ t en Decision s, t h e
Boa rd det er m in ed t h at Wi-F i h a d n ot sh own t h a t Broa d-
com was in privit y wit h t h e defen dan t s in t h e Ea st er n
Dist rict of Texa s lit iga t ion , a n d t h erefor e, t h e IP R pet i-
t ions were n ot t im e-bar red u n der § 315(b). Br oa d com
Cor p. v. Wi-F i On e, L LC, No. IP R2013-00601, 2015 WL
1263008, at *4–5 (P .T.A.B. Ma r. 6, 2015); Br oa d com Cor p.
v. Wi-F i On e, LLC, No. IP R2013-00602, 2015 WL
1263009, a t *4 (P .T.A.B. Ma r. 6, 2015); Broa d com Corp.
v. Wi-F i On e, LLC, No. IP R2013-00636, 2015 WL
1263010, at *4 (P .T.A.B. Ma r. 6, 2015).
Wi-F i a ppea led t h e F in a l Wr it t en Decision s, ar gu in g,
a m on g ot h er t h in gs, t h at t h is cou r t sh ou ld r ever se or
va ca t e t h e Boa rd’s t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion s. A pan el of
t h is cour t r eject ed Wi-F i’s ar gu m en t s, rea son in g t h at
Ach a tes ren ders t h e § 315(b) t im e-bar ru lin gs n on a ppea l-
a ble. S ee Wi-F i On e, LLC v. Br oa d com Cor p., 837 F .3d
1329, 1333 (F ed. Cir. 2016) (“Wi-F i does n ot dispu t e t h at
Ach a tes ren ders it s ch a llen ge t o t h e Boar d’s t im elin ess
ru lin g n on appealable if Ach a tes is st ill good la w.”). Be-
ca u se t he pa n el con clu ded t h a t Cu ozzo did n ot im plicit ly
over ru le Ach a tes, it h eld Wi-F i’s t im e-bar ch allen ges t o be
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/08/2018

14 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

u nr eviewa ble, a n d a ffirm ed. Id . a t 1334–35, 1340; see


a lso Wi-F i On e, LLC v. Br oa d com Cor p., 668 F . App’x 893
(F ed. Cir . 2016) (su m m a rily a ffirm in g t h e t im e-ba r deci-
sions on t he ’568 a n d ’625 pa t en t s).
Wi-F i pet it ion ed for reh ear in g en ba n c. We gra n t ed
Wi-F i’s pet it ion t o con sider wh et h er we s h ou ld over ru le
Ach a tes a nd h old t h at t h e Direct or ’s § 315(b) t im e-bar
det erm ina t ion s a re su bject t o ju dicial r eview. Th e qu es-
t ion pr esen t ed for en ban c r eh ea rin g is:
Shou ld t h is cou r t overr u le Ach a tes Referen ce P u b-
lishin g, In c. v. Apple In c., 803 F .3d 652 (F ed. Cir .
2015) a n d h old t h a t ju dicia l review is a vaila ble for
a pa t en t own er t o ch a llen ge t h e P TO’s det erm in a -
t ion t h a t t h e pet it ion er sat isfied t h e t im elin ess
requirem en t of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) govern in g t h e
filin g of pet it ion s for in t er pa rt es r eview?
Wi-F i On e, LLC v. Br oa d com Corp., 851 F .3d 1241, 1241
(F ed. Cir . 2017).
II. D ISCU SSION
As wit h a n y agen cy a ct ion , we apply t h e “st ron g pr e-
sum pt ion ” fa vor in g ju dicial review of a dm in ist r at ive
a ct ions, in clu din g t h e Dir ect or ’s IP R in st it u t ion deci-
sions. 6 Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at 2140; see a lso Gu tier rez d e

6 F in al decision s of t h e P TO a re r eviewed accor din g


t o t h e st an da rds pr ovided in t h e Adm in ist ra t ive P r oce-
du re Act (“AP A”). Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at 2142; Un wired
P la n et, LLC v. Google In c., 841 F .3d 1376, 1379 (F ed. Cir .
2016). An d 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a )(4)(A) pr ovides t h is cou rt
wit h exclu sive ju r isdict ion over a n a ppea l from a decision
of “t he P at en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd of t h e Un it ed
St a t es P at en t an d Tr adem a rk Office wit h r espect
t o . . . int er pa rt es review u n der t it le 35.”
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 15

Ma rtin ez v. La m a gn o, 515 U.S. 417, 424 (1995) (“[F ]eder al


ju dges t ra dit ion ally proceed from t h e ‘st ron g presu m pt ion
t h a t Congress in t en ds ju dicia l r eview.’”); Bowen v. Mich .
Aca d . of F a m ily P h ysicia n s, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986);
Un ited S ta tes v. Nou r se, 34 U.S. (9 P et .) 8, 28–29 (1835).
Accor din gly, if a st at u t e is “rea son ably su scept ible” t o a n
in t er pret at ion allowin g ju dicial r eview, we m u st adopt
such a n int erpr et a t ion . Ku ca n a v. H old er, 558 U.S. 233,
251 (2010); Gu tierrez d e Ma r tin ez, 515 U.S. at 434.
In view of t h is st r on g pr esu m pt ion , we will a bdica t e
ju dicial review on ly wh en Con gress provides a “clea r a n d
con vincing” in dicat ion t h a t it in t en ds t o pr oh ibit review.
Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at 2140; see Lin d a h l v. Office of P ers.
Mgm t., 470 U.S. 768, 778 (1985); Block, 467 U.S. a t 349–
50; Retu rn Ma il, In c. v. U.S . P osta l S er v., 868 F .3d 1350,
1357 (F ed. Cir. 2017).
We find n o clea r a n d con vin cin g in dicat ion in t h e spe-
cific st at ut ory la n gu age in t h e AIA, t h e specific legislat ive
h ist ory of t h e AIA, or t h e st a t u t or y sch em e a s a wh ole
t h a t dem onst r at es Con gress’s in t en t t o ba r ju dicial r eview
of § 315(b) t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion s. S ee Cu ozzo, 136 S.
Ct . at 2140. Th e pa rt ies h ave n ot cit ed, n or ar e we a war e
of, an y specific legisla t ive h ist or y t h at clea rly an d con -
vincingly indica t es con gression a l in t en t t o ba r ju dicial
review of § 315(b) tim e-bar det erm in at ion s. We review
t h e st at u t ory lan gu a ge a n d t h e st a t u t or y sch em e in t u r n .
St a rt ing wit h t h e st at u t ory la n gu age, § 314(d) pro-
vides t ha t “[t ]h e det erm in at ion by t h e Dir ect or wh et h er t o
in st it u t e a n in t er par t es review u n d er th is section sh a ll be
fin al an d n on a ppea lable.” (em ph asis added). Th e n a t u r al
rea din g of t h e st at u t e lim it s t h e r each of § 314(d) t o t h e
det erm ina t ion by t h e Dir ect or wh et h er t o in st it u t e IP R a s
set for t h in § 314. Su bsect ion (a) of § 314—t h e on ly
subsect ion addressin g su bst an t ive issu es t h at a re pa rt of
t h e Direct or’s det er m in at ion “u n der t h is sect ion ”—r eads:
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 16 Filed: 01/08/2018

16 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

(a ) Th r e s h o ld .--Th e Direct or m ay n ot a u t h or ize


an int er pa rt es review t o be in st it u t ed u n less t h e
Direct or det er m in es t h a t t h e in for m a t ion pr esen t
in t h e pet it ion filed u n der sect ion 311 an d an y re-
sponse filed u n der sect ion 313 sh ows t h a t th ere is
a r eason able likelih ood t h a t t h e pet it ion er wou ld
prevail wit h respect t o a t least 1 of t h e claim s
ch allenged in t h e pet it ion .
Subsect ion (a ) does on ly two t h in gs: it iden t ifies a
t h resh old requ irem en t for in st it u t ion , an d a s Cu ozzo
recogn ized, it gr an t s t h e Direct or discret ion n ot t o in st i-
t u t e even wh en t h e t h r esh old is m et . 136 S. Ct . a t 2140
(“[T]h e agency’s decision t o den y a pet it ion is a m at t er
com m it t ed t o t h e P a t en t Office’s discret ion .”). It does n ot
a ddress a n y ot h er issu e relevan t t o a n in st it u t ion det er-
m ina t ion. Th e lan gu age of § 314(a ) defin es t h e t h resh old
in t erm s of det erm in a t ion s t h a t a re focu sed on t h e pa -
t en t a bility m erit s of par t icu la r claim s. Th is det er m in a -
t ion is only prelimin ar y, aim ed ju st a t wh at is r eason a bly
likely t o be decided wh en pa t en t a bilit y is fu lly addressed,
shou ld an IP R be in st it u t ed. S ee Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . a t
2140. In refer rin g t o t h e prelim in a ry pat en t a bilit y de-
t er m in a t ion , t h e Cou rt ch ar act er ized t h e Direct or ’s discr e-
t ion r ega rdin g in st it u t ion a s bein g “a kin t o decision s
which , in ot h er con t ext s, we h ave h eld t o be u n r eviewa -
ble.” Id. 7

7 Exam ples in clu de an agen cy’s discr et ion a ry deci-


sion n ot t o in it ia t e a proceedin g, Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at
2140, a gra n d ju ry’s det er m in a t ion of proba ble ca u se, id .,
a nd a cou rt ’s den ial of su m m a ry ju dgm en t , see Ortiz v.
J ord a n, 562 U.S. 180, 183–84 (2011); S witz. Ch eese Ass’n ,
Inc. v. E. H or n e’s Ma r ket, In c., 385 U.S. 23, 25 (1966);
F u nction Med ia , LLC v. Google In c., 708 F .3d 1310, 1322
(F ed. Cir . 2013).
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 17 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 17

In con t r ast , § 315(b) con t r ols t h e Direct or’s a u t h or it y


t o in st it u t e IP R t h at is u n relat ed t o t h e Direct or ’s pr elim -
in ar y pat ent abilit y assessm en t or t h e Direct or ’s discret ion
n ot t o init ia t e a n IP R even if t h e t h resh old “rea son a ble
likelihood” is pr esen t . Sect ion 315(b) r eads:
(b ) P a t e n t Ow n e r ’s Ac t io n . An in t er par t es re-
view m ay n ot be in st it u t ed if t h e pet it ion r equ est -
in g t h e pr oceedin g is filed m ore t h a n 1 year a ft er
t h e da t e on wh ich t h e pet it ion er, r eal pa rt y in in -
t er est , or privy of t h e pet it ion er is ser ved wit h a
com pla int allegin g in frin gem en t of t h e pa t en t .
Th e t im e lim it at ion set for t h in t h e precedin g sen -
t en ce sh all n ot apply t o a requ est for join der u n -
der subsect ion (c).
Th e dissen t st a t es t h at § 315(b) “does n ot go t o t h e
m er it s of t h e pet it ion .” Dissen t in g Op. a t 5. Th is is
cor rect . Th e t im e-ba r decision is n owh ere refer r ed t o in
§ 314(a ). Addit ion ally, t h e t im e bar is n ot focu sed on
pa rt icu la r cla im s, wh er eas § 314(a)’s t h r esh old det er m i-
n at ion is; t h e t im e bar in volves on ly t h e t im e of service of
a com plain t allegin g in fr in gem en t “of t h e pa t en t .” N ot h -
in g in § 315(b) set s u p a t wo-st a ge process for a ddressin g
t h e t im e ba r: t h e t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion m ay be decided
fully a nd fina lly a t t h e in st it u t ion st age.
Th e t im e-ba r det er m in a t ion , t h erefor e, is n ot a kin t o
eit her t he n on -in it iat ion or prelim in a ry-on ly m erit s
det erm ina t ion s for wh ich u n reviewabilit y is com m on in
t h e la w, in t h e la t t er case beca u se t h e closely rela t ed fin al
m er it s det erm in at ion is r eviewable. S ee su pr a n ot e 7.
Becau se § 314(a) does n ot m en t ion t h is dist in ct issu e, t h e
P TO’s posit ion t h at t h e t im e-ba r det er m in at ion is u n r e-
viewable r u n s cou n t er t o t h e prin ciple, a s reflect ed in
Cu ozzo, t h a t fa vors r ea din g t h e st at u t e t o com port wit h ,
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 18 Filed: 01/08/2018

18 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

n ot depa rt from , fa m ilia r a ppr oach es t o com pa ra ble


issu es. 8
Th is rea din g is con sist en t wit h t h e overa ll st a t u t ory
sch em e a s u n derst ood t h rou gh t h e len s of Cu ozzo’s di-
rect ive t o exa m in e t h e st at u t ory sch em e in t erm s of wh at
is “closely rela t ed” to t h e § 314(a ) det er m in at ion . Th e
Suprem e Cou rt in Cu ozzo st a t ed t h a t Ҥ 314(d) ba rs
ju dicial r eview” bot h wh en “a pa t en t h older m erely ch a l-
len ged t h e P at en t Office’s ‘det erm in [a t ion ] t h a t t h e in for -
m a t ion presen t ed in th e pet it ion . . . sh ows t h a t t h er e is a
rea sona ble likelih ood’ of su ccess ‘wit h r espect t o a t least 1
of t h e cla im s ch allen ged,’ § 314(a)” a n d, in addit ion , wh en
“a pat ent h older grou n ds it s cla im in a st a t u t e closely
relat ed t o th a t decision t o in st it u t e in t er pa rt es review.”
136 S. Ct . a t 2142 (a lt er at ion s in origin a l) (em ph a sis
a dded). Th e st at u t or y sch em e dem on st r at es t h a t sever al
sect ions of t h e AIA, su ch as t h e pr elim in a ry pr ocedu r a l
requ irem ent s st at ed in §§ 311–13, r ela t e m or e closely t o
t h e det erm in a t ion by t h e Dir ect or . Th e “r eason able
likelihood” det er m in at ion u n der § 314(a) is clea rly abou t
whet her “t h e cla im s a re u n pa t en t a ble on t h e grou n ds
a ssert ed.” Id . a t 2140. Th e Cou rt ’s st a t em en t of it s
h oldin g t hu s st r on gly poin t s t owa rd u n reviewa bilit y bein g
lim it ed t o t h e Dir ect or ’s det er m in at ion s closely r elat ed t o
t h e prelim in ar y pat en t a bilit y det er m in a t ion or t h e exer -
cise of discret ion n ot t o in st it u t e.

8 Alt hou gh § 314(d) u ses la n gu age som ewh a t differ -


en t fr om t he la n gu age of precu r sor provision s, t h ere is n o
rea son t o in fer a deliber at e br oaden in g of t h e scope of
n onr eviewa bilit y—cert ain ly n ot a clea r an d con vin cin g
rea son. In deed, t h e Cou r t in Cu ozzo st ressed t h e sim ilar i-
t y of § 314(d) t o it s pr ecu r sors, wit h ou t m en t ion in g differ -
en ces. 136 S. Ct . at 2140.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 19 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 19

Whet h er a pet it ion er h a s com plied wit h § 315(b) is n ot


such a det er m in a t ion , a s it h as n ot h in g t o do wit h t h e
pa t en t a bilit y m erit s or discret ion n ot t o in st it u t e. Th e
t im e-ba r provision con t ra st s wit h m a n y of t h e prelim in a ry
pr ocedu r al r equ ir em en t s st a t ed in §§ 311–13, wh ich
relat e t o t h e Dir ect or ’s a bilit y t o ma ke a n in for m ed pr e-
lim in a ry pat en t abilit y det er m in a tion pu rsu a n t t o
§ 314(a ). Specifica lly, § 315(b) tim e-ba r det erm in at ion s
a re fu n dam en t ally differ en t from t h ose evalu at in g t h e
sat isfa ct ion of § 312(a)(3)’s r equ ir em en t s, at issu e in
Cu ozzo. Sect ion 312(a )(3) dem an ds pa r t icu lar it y a s t o
“ea ch claim ch allen ged, t h e grou n ds on wh ich t h e ch al-
len ge t o ea ch claim is ba sed, a n d t h e eviden ce t h a t su p-
por t s t he grou n ds for t h e ch a llen ge t o ea ch claim .” Th at
requ irem ent is closely t ied t o t h e Direct or’s det er m in at ion
of a “rea sonable likelih ood” of u n pat en t abilit y of at lea st
on e cla im . Th e tim e ba r is n ot .
Th e issu e t h at Wi-F i appeals also is n ot “som e m in or
st a t u t ory t ech n icalit y.” Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at 2140. Th e
t im e ba r is n ot m er ely abou t prelim in a ry pr ocedu r al
requ irem ent s t h a t ma y be corr ect ed if t h ey fail t o reflect
rea l-world fa ct s, bu t a bou t real-wor ld facts t h at lim it t h e
a gen cy’s au t h orit y t o act u n der t h e IP R sch em e. 9 Th e

9 F or in st an ce, t h e dissen t con fla t es “rea l par t y in


in t er est ” a s u sed in § 312(a )(2) a n d § 315(b), an d claim s
t h a t Ҥ 312(a )(2) is par t an d pa rcel of t h e t im elin ess
in qu ir y u nder § 315.” Dissen t in g Op. at 10. Th is is
in cor rect . F or exam ple, if a pet it ion fails t o iden t ify a ll
rea l par t ies in in t er est u n der § 312(a)(2), t h e Dir ect or can ,
a nd does, a llow t h e pet it ion er t o a dd a rea l par t y in
in t er est . S ee, e.g., In tel Cor p. v. Ala cr itech , In c., No.
IP R2017-01392, P a per No. 11, at 23 (P .T.A.B. Nov. 30,
2017); Elekta , In c. v. Va r ia n Med ica l S ys., In c., N o.
IP R2015–01401, 2015 WL 9898990, at *4, *6 (P .T.A.B.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 20 Filed: 01/08/2018

20 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

t im ely filin g of a pet it ion u n der § 315(b) is a con dit ion


pr ecedent t o t h e Dir ect or’s a u t h or it y t o act . It set s lim it s
on t h e Direct or ’s st a t u t or y a u t h or it y t o in st it u t e, ba la n c-
in g var iou s pu blic in t erest s. An d like § 315 as a wh ole, it
govern s t h e relat ion of IP Rs t o ot h er proceedin gs or
a ct ions, in clu din g a ct ion s t a ken in dist rict cou rt .
Th us, t he st a t u t ory sch em e as a wh ole dem on st r at es
t h a t § 315 is n ot “closely r elat ed” t o t h e in st it u t ion deci-
sion a ddr essed in § 314(a), an d it t h erefore is n ot su bject
t o § 314(d)’s ba r on ju dicia l review. Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at
2142; cf. Cred it Accepta n ce Cor p. v. Westla ke S ervs., 859
F .3d 1044, 1049–51 (F ed. Cir. 2017) (h oldin g t h a t a sim i-
la r n ona ppea la bilit y pr ovision wit h respect t o post -gra n t
review, 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), does n ot preclu de ou r r eview of
a n est oppel det erm in a t ion u n der 35 U .S.C. § 325(e)(1)).
Accor din gly, ou r r eview of t h e st a t u t or y lan gu age a n d t h e
st a t u t ory sch em e revea ls n o clear an d con vin cin g in dica -
t ion of Con gr ess’s in t en t t o ba r ju dicial review of § 315(b)
t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion s.
En forcing st a t u t ory lim it s on a n agen cy’s au t h or it y t o
a ct is precisely t h e t ype of issu e t h a t cou r t s h a ve h ist or i-
ca lly r eviewed. S ee, e.g., City of Ar lin gton v. F .C.C., 569
U.S. 290, 307 (2013); Bowen , 476 U.S. at 671; Leed om v.
Kyn e, 358 U .S. 184, 190 (1958). As a st at u t ory lim it on
t h e Direct or’s abilit y t o in st it u t e IP R, t h e § 315(b) t im e

Dec. 31, 2015). F or t h is rea son , t h e P TO h as est ablish ed


pr ocedu r es t o r ect ify n on com plia n ce of § 312(a)(2). Lu -
m entu m H old in gs, I n c. v. Ca pella P h oton ics, In c., No.
IP R2015-00739, 2016 WL 2736005, a t *3 (P .T.A.B. Mar . 4,
2016) (preceden t ia l); 37 C.F .R. §§ 42.8(a )(3), 42.8(b)(1). In
con t r ast , if a pet it ion is n ot filed wit h in a yea r a ft er a rea l
pa rt y in in t er est , or privy of t h e pet it ion er is served wit h
a com plaint , it is t im e-ba rred by § 315(b), an d t h e pet it ion
ca n not be rect ified a n d in n o even t ca n IP R be in st it u t ed.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 21 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 21

bar is su ch a n issu e. We h old t h at t im e-ba r det erm in a-


t ions un der § 315(b) are reviewable by t h is cou rt .
III. C ONCLU SION
Th e Su prem e Cou r t in Cu ozzo in st r u ct ed t h a t t h e
“st r on g presu m pt ion ” fa vor in g ju dicial r eview “m a y be
over com e by ‘“clea r an d con vin cin g”’ in dica t ion s, dra wn
from ‘specific lan gu age,’ ‘specific legisla t ive h ist ory,’ an d
‘in feren ces of in t en t dr awn fr om t h e st at u t or y sch em e as a
whole,’ t h at Con gr ess in t en ded t o ba r review.” 136 S. Ct .
a t 2140. F in din g n o su ch clea r an d con vin cin g in dica -
t ions, we h old t h at t h e Direct or’s t im e-ba r det erm in a t ion s
u nder § 315(b) a re n ot exem pt from ju dicial review, an d
over ru le Ach a tes’s con t r ar y con clu sion . We do n ot decide
t oday wh et h er a ll dispu t es ar isin g fr om §§ 311–14 ar e
fin al a n d n on appealable. Ou r h oldin g a pplies on ly t o t h e
a ppea labilit y of § 315(b) t im e-ba r det er m in a t ion s. We
rem an d for t h e pa n el t o con sider in t h e fir st in st a n ce t h e
m er it s of Wi-F i’s t im e-bar appeal.
R E MAN D E D T O TH E M E R I TS P AN E L
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 22 Filed: 01/08/2018

United S tates Court of Appeals


for the F ederal Circuit
______________________

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1944
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00601.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 23 Filed: 01/08/2018

2 WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1945
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00602.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1946
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00636.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 24 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 3

______________________

O’M ALLE Y, Cir cu it J u d ge, con cu rr in g.


I agree wit h m u ch of t h e m a jorit y’s t h ou gh t fu l rea son -
in g, a n d I cert ain ly a gr ee wit h it s con clu sion t h a t t im e-
bar det er m in at ion s u n der 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ar e n ot
exem pt from ju dicia l r eview. I writ e separa t ely beca u se,
in m y view, t h e qu est ion pr esen t ed for en ban c r eh ea r in g
in t h is case is m u ch sim pler t h an t h e m a jorit y’s an a lysis
im plies; it t u rn s on t h e dist in ct ion bet ween t h e Direct or’s
a ut hor it y t o exercise discr et ion wh en r eviewin g t h e a de-
qua cy of a pet it ion t o in st it u t e an in t er pa rt es review
(“IP R”) a nd a u t h orit y t o u n der t a ke su ch a review in t h e
first in st an ce. If t h e Un it ed St a t es P at en t a n d Tr ade-
m a rk Office (“P TO”) exceeds it s st a t u t or y au t h orit y by
in st it u t ing an IP R proceedin g u n der cir cu m st an ces con -
t r ar y t o t h e la n gu age of § 315(b), ou r cou r t , sit tin g in it s
pr oper r ole as a n appella t e cou rt , sh ou ld review t h ose
det erm ina t ion s. In deed, we sh ou ld a ddress t h ose deci-
sions in order t o give effect t o t h e con gr ession ally im posed
st a t u t ory lim ita t ion s on t h e P TO’s au t h orit y t o in st it u t e
IP Rs.
As we explain ed in In tellectu a l Ven tu res II LLC v.
J P Mor ga n Ch a se & Co., 781 F .3d 1372 (F ed. Cir. 2015),
when a ssessin g wh eth er we m ay exer cise ju risdict ion over
a n a ppea l fr om in st it u t ion decision s rega rdin g cover ed
busin ess m et h od pat en t s (“CBMs”), Con gr ess con sist en t ly
differen t iat ed bet ween pet it ion s t o in st it u t e a n d t h e a ct of
in st it u t ion in t h e AIA. Id . a t 1376. Th e form er is wh at a
pa rt y seekin g t o ch a llen ge a pat en t in a CBM pr oceedin g,
a derivat ion proceedin g, a post -gr an t pr oceedin g, or a n
IP R files—an d of wh ich t h e P TO r eviews th e su fficien cy—
a nd t h e la t t er is wh at t h e Direct or is a u t h orized t o do. Id .
Becau se on ly t h e Direct or or h er delegees m a y “in st it u t e”
a proceeding, § 315(b)’s ba r on in st it u t ion is n ecessar ily
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 25 Filed: 01/08/2018

4 WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

dir ect ed t o t h e P TO, n ot t h ose filin g a pet it ion t o in st it u t e.


S ee id.
Th e P TO’s own regu lat ion s su pport t h is r eadin g
of § 315(b); t h ey clear ly con sider t h e possibility t h a t t h e
Boa rd m igh t m ist a ken ly t ak e a ct ion s in excess of it s
st a t u t ory ju risdict ion . F or exam ple, P ar t 42 of Tit le 37 in
t h e Code of F eder al Regu la t ion s “govern s proceedin gs
befor e t he P a t en t Tr ia l a n d Appea l Board.” 37 C.F .R.
§ 42.1(a) (2016). In a ddr essin g “J u r isdict ion ” for t h ese
pr oceedin gs, P ar t 42 expressly requ ires t h at “[a] pet it ion
t o in st it ut e a t r ia l m u st be filed wit h t h e Boa rd con sist en t
wit h an y t im e period r equ ir ed by st a t u t e.” Id . § 42.3(b);
see a lso id . § 42.2 (iden t ifyin g IP R proceedin gs a s fa llin g
wit h in t he defin ition of “t ria l”). A st ra igh t for war d rea d-
in g of t h ese regu la t ion s in dicat es t h a t t h e P TO believed,
a t lea st at t h e t im e it issu ed t h ose regu lat ion s, t h a t it
would not h a ve st at u t ory ju risdict ion or a u t h or it y t o
in st it u t e pr oceedin gs—in clu din g IP Rs—in r espon se t o
pet it ion s t o in st it u t e filed ou tsid e t h e t im e lim it set by
st a t u t e for su ch filin gs, r ega rdless of t h e adequ acy of
t h ose pet it ion s.
Sect ion 314(d)’s ba r on appella t e r eview is direct ed t o
t h e Dir ect or’s a ssess m en t of t h e su bst a n t ive a dequ a cy of a
t im ely filed pet it ion . Becau se § 315(b)’s t im e ba r h a s
n ot h ing t o do wit h t h e su bst an t ive a dequ acy of t h e pet i-
t ion a n d is direct ed, in st ea d, t o t h e Dir ect or’s au t h or it y t o
a ct , § 314(d) does n ot a pply t o decision s u n der t h at provi-
sion.
Th is con clu sion n ot on ly is con sist en t wit h , bu t , in m y
view, is dict a t ed by t h e Su pr em e Cou rt ’s r eason in g in
Cu ozzo S peed Tech n ologies, LL C v. Lee, 136 S. Ct . 2131
(2016). Th ere, t h e Cou rt con sidered wh et h er § 314(d)
bar s review of det er m in at ion s by t h e P TO t h a t a pet it ion
for IP R com plies, a t lea st im plicit ly, wit h th e “par t icu lar i-
t y” requ irem en t set for t h in § 312(a)(3). 136 S. Ct . at
2138–39. Th e m a jor it y h er e corr ect ly n ot es t h a t t h e
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 26 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 5

Cou rt in Cu ozzo “r ecogn ize[d] t h e ‘st r on g pr esu m pt ion ’ in


favor of ju dicial review t h a t we a pply wh en we in t er pret
st a t u t es, in clu din g st at u t es t h a t m a y lim it or pr eclu de
review.” Id . a t 2140 (qu ot in g Ma ch Min in g, LLC v.
E.E.O.C., 135 S. Ct . 1645, 1650–51 (2015) (in t ern al qu ot a-
t ion m a rks om it t ed)). Th e Cou rt obser ved, h owever, t h at
t h is presum pt ion cou ld be overcom e by “clea r an d con vin c-
in g” in dicat ion s, dr awn fr om “specific lan gu a ge,” “specific
legisla t ive hist ory,” an d “in fer en ces of in t en t dra wn fr om
t h e st at ut ory sch em e as a wh ole,” t h a t Con gress in t en ded
t o bar review. Id . (qu ot in g Block v. Cm ty. Nu trition I n st.,
467 U.S. 340, 349–50 (1984)).
In decidin g t h a t t h e presu m pt ion in fa vor of ju dicial
review wa s overcom e in t h a t case, t h e Cou rt an alyzed a n d
dist inguish ed Lin d a h l v. Office of P er son n el Ma n a gem en t,
470 U.S. 768 (1985). Lin d a h l in volved t h e qu est ion of
whet her cou rt s can review disa bilit y det er m in a t ion s for
federa l em ployees m ade by a feder al agen cy. 470 U.S. at
771. Accordin g t o t h e m a jorit y in Cu ozzo, Lin d a h l in -
volved t he con st r u ct ion of a st a t u t e t h a t (1) direct ed a n
a gen cy t o “det erm in e qu est ion s of liabilit y;” (2) m ade
t h ose det erm in a t ion s “fin al,” “con clu sive,” a n d “n ot su b-
ject t o review;” a n d (3) bar red cou rt s from revisit in g t h e
“fa ct ua l u nderpin n in gs of . . . disabilit y det er m in a t ion s.”
136 S. Ct . at 2141 (qu ot in g Lin d a h l, 470 U.S. at 771, 791).
Th e Cou rt observed, h owever, t h a t t h e sam e st at u t e
per m it t ed cou rt s t o con sider cla im s a llegin g, for exam ple,
t h a t t h e agen cy “su bst an t ial[ly] depar t [ed] from im -
por t a nt pr ocedu r al righ t s.” Id . (qu ot in g L in d a h l, 470 U.S.
a t 791).
Th e Cu ozzo m a jorit y ch a ra ct erized Lin d a h l’s in t er pr e-
t a t ion of it s par t icu lar st a t u t e a s “pr eser v[in g] t h e agen -
cy’s pr im a cy over it s core st a t u t ory fu n ct ion in a ccord
wit h Con gr ess’ in t en t ,” a n d decla red t h at it s “in t er pret a-
t ion of t h e ‘No Appeal’ provision [in t h e AIA] h a s t h e sam e
effect .” Id. Th is is beca u se Con gr ess, in en act in g t h e
AIA, recognized t h a t t h e “core st a t u t ory fu n ct ion ” of t h e
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 27 Filed: 01/08/2018

6 WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

P TO is t o m a ke pat en t a bilit y det er m in a t ion s, a n d ch ose


t o in su la t e from ju dicial review prelim in a ry det erm in a-
t ions by t he P TO a s t o wh et h er IP R pet it ion s “sh ow[] t h a t
t h ere is a rea son a ble lik elih ood t h at t h e pet it ion er wou ld
pr eva il wit h r espect t o at lea st 1 of t h e claim s ch a llen ged
in t he pet it ion .” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a ); see Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct .
a t 2141 (“Th e t ext of t h e ‘No Appea l’ provision , alon g wit h
it s pla ce in t h e overa ll st a t u t ory sch em e, its r ole a lon gside
t h e Adm in ist ra t ive P rocedu re Act , t h e pr ior in t erpr et a -
t ion of sim ilar pat en t st a t u t es, an d Con gr ess’ pu r pose in
cr aft ing IP R, all poin t in favor of pr eclu din g review of t h e
[P TO]’s in stitu tion d ecision s.” (em ph a sis a dded)). F or t h is
rea son, t h e Cou rt fou n d t h at Cu ozzo’s claim t h a t an IP R
pet it ion “was n ot pleaded ‘wit h pa rt icu la rit y’ u n der § 312
[wa]s lit t le m ore t h an a ch a llen ge t o t h e [P TO]’s con clu -
sion, un der § 314(a), t h at t h e ‘in form a t ion pr esen t ed in
t h e pet it ion ’ war ra n t ed r eview.” Id . at 2142 (cit at ion
om it t ed).
Sect ion 315(b)’s t im e ba r falls squ ar ely on t h e ot h er
side of Cuozzo’s appea lability ledger , for it is n ot “closely
t ied t o t h e a pplicat ion a n d in t er pret at ion of st a t u t es
relat ed t o t h e [P TO]’s decision t o in it ia t e [IP R].” Id . at
2141. Sect ion 315(b) does n ot con t em pla te t h at t h e P TO
ren der a decision r elat ed t o pa t en t a bilit y—it sim ply
pla ces a lim it on t h e P TO’s a u t h or it y t o in st it u t e IP Rs
t h a t is ba sed on a com pa rison of t wo or m ore da t es. An d
it does so wit h t h e u n a m bigu ou s ph r ase “[a]n [IP R] m a y
n ot be institu ted if . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (em ph asis
a dded). In con t ra st wit h t h e Direct or’s § 314(a ) det erm i-
n at ion, wh ich in volves t h e pr elim in ar y a pplica tion of
pa t en t a bilit y prin ciples, n o su ch decision is con t em plat ed
in § 315(b). S ee N.L.R.B. v. S W Gen ., In c., 137 S. Ct . 929,
940 (2017) (descr ibin g a clau se t h a t “spea ks t o wh o ‘m ay
n ot ’ be a n a ct in g officer ” as an im pera t ive).
P u t a not h er way, § 315(b) codifies on e of t h e “im -
por t a nt pr ocedu ra l righ t s” t h a t Con gress ch ose t o a fford
pa t en t own ers in t h e IP R con t ext . Lin d a h l, 470 U .S. at
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 28 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 7

791. Allowin g ju dicial r eview of err on eou s det erm in a t ion s


by t h e P TO a s t o wh et h er t h e § 315(b) t im e ba r applies
would preven t t h e a gen cy fr om “a ct [in g] ou t side it s st at u -
t or y lim it s,” on e of t h e cat egories of “sh en a n iga n s” en vi-
sioned by t h e m ajor it y in Cu ozzo. 136 S. Ct . a t 2141–42.
A det erm in a t ion by t h e P TO wh et h er an IP R pet it ion
is t im e-ba rred u n der § 315(b) is en t ir ely u n rela t ed t o t h e
a gen cy’s “cor e st a t u t ory fu n ct ion ” of det er m in in g wh et h er
claim s a re or a re n ot pa t en t able. Id . at 2141 (qu ot in g
Lin da h l, 470 U .S. a t 791). Un lik e t h e t h resh old m er it s
in qu ir y su bsu m ed wit h in § 314(a ), n o t ech n ica l expert ise
is requ ired t o calcu lat e wh et h er a petit ion is “filed m or e
t h a n 1 yea r a ft er t h e da t e on wh ich t h e pet it ion er , r eal
pa rt y in in t er est , or privy of t h e pet it ion er is served wit h
a com pla int a llegin g in frin gem en t of t h e pat en t .” 35
U.S.C. § 315(b).
Con gr ess is well versed in est ablish in g st at u t ory t im e
bar s. Con gr ession al discret ion sh ou ld con t rol t h e applica-
t ion of su ch t im e bar s, n ot t h at of t h e Dir ect or of t h e P TO.
I do n ot see t h e n eed t o say m ore.
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 29 Filed: 01/08/2018

United S tates Court of Appeals


for the F ederal Circuit
______________________

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1944
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00601.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 30 Filed: 01/08/2018

2 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1945
______________________

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00602.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

WI -F I O N E , L L C ,
Appella n t

v.

B R O AD C O M C O R P O R AT I O N ,
Appellee

J O S E P H M ATAL , P E R F O R M I N G TH E F UN C TI O N S
AN D D U TI E S O F T H E U N D E R S E C R E TAR Y OF
C O M M E R C E F OR I N TE L L E C TU AL P R O P E R T Y
AN D D I R E C TO R , U.S . P ATE NT AND TR ADE M AR K
OF F ICE,
In ter ven or
______________________

2015-1946
______________________
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 31 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 3

Appeal fr om t h e Un it ed St a t es P a t en t a n d Tra dem ar k


Office, P a t en t Trial a n d Appea l Boa rd in No. IP R2013-
00636.
______________________

H U GH E S , Circu it J u d ge, join ed by L OU RIE , B RYSON , a n d


D YK , Circu it J u d ges, dissen t in g.
Con gr ess ba rr ed ju dicial review of t h e P a t en t a n d
Tr adem ar k Office (P TO) Dir ect or ’s decision t o in st it u t e
in t er pa rt es review (IP R) in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Th e
m a jorit y opin ion , h owever , limit s t h is pr oh ibit ion t o t h e
Direct or ’s as sessm en t of t h e crit eria for in s t it u t in g r eview
set fort h in § 314. Accordin gly, t h is cou r t fin ds t h a t
§ 314(d) does n ot apply t o ot h er prelim in a ry det erm in a -
t ions, su ch as wh et h er t h e pet it ion was t im ely filed. I do
n ot a gree wit h su ch a n ar row rea din g of t h e st a t u t e,
which n ot on ly con t ra dict s t h e st a t u t ory la n gu a ge, bu t is
a lso con t r ar y t o t h e Su pr em e Cou rt ’s con st r u ct ion of t h a t
la nguage in Cu ozzo S peed Tech n ologies, LLC v. L ee, 136
S. Ct . 2131 (2016).
In Cu ozzo, t h e Su pr em e Cou rt h eld t h at § 314(d) pr o-
h ibit ed judicial r eview of “qu est ion s t h a t a re closely t ied
t o t he a pplica t ion a n d in t erpr et a t ion of st at u t es rela t ed t o
t h e P a t en t Office’s decision t o in it ia t e in t er pa rt es re-
view,” in cludin g qu est ion s of com plia n ce wit h 35 U.S.C.
§ 312(a )(3)’s pet it ion r equ ir em en t s. 136 S. Ct . at 2141.
35 U.S.C. § 315(b), wh ich describes wh en a n IP R m ay be
“inst it ut ed,” is even m or e closely relat ed t o in st it u t ion
decisions t ha n § 312(a )(3)—wh ich does n ot u se t h e word
“inst it ut e.” In m y view, Cu ozzo con firm s t h at § 314(d) is
n ot limit ed t o t h e m erit s of t h e pet it ion , bu t a lso ba rs
ju dicial review of closely rela t ed issu es su ch a s t h e pet i-
t ion’s t im elin ess. Beca u se t h e m a jorit y opin ion is in con -
sist ent wit h Cu ozzo an d t h e plain m ea n in g of § 314(d), I
respect fu lly dissen t .
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 32 Filed: 01/08/2018

4 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

I
Our in qu iry sh ou ld st a rt a n d en d wit h t h e wor ds of
t h e st at ut e. Th e AP A exem pt s a gen cy a ct ion s from ju di-
cial review “t o t h e ext en t t h a t st at u t es preclu de ju dicial
review.” 5 U .S.C. § 701. Th er e is a “st r on g presu m pt ion
t h a t Con gress in t en ds ju dicia l review of a dm in ist r at ive
a ct ion” a n d an y con t ra ry in t en t m u st be clear a n d con -
vincing. Bowen v. Mich . Aca d . of F a m ily P h ysicia n s, 476
U.S. 667, 670–71 (1986). Th is presu m pt ion , of cou r se, is
n ot insur m ou n t able. Con gress ca n en a ct specific st a t u t es
t o ba r review, or t h e legisla t ive h ist or y m igh t ma n ifest
Con gr ess’s in t en t t o do so. Id . a t 673. Even in t h e a b-
sence of a n expr ess pr oh ibit ion , t h e overa ll st at u t ory
st ru ct ur e m igh t in dica t e t h at Con gr ess sou gh t t o pr oh ibit
ju dicial r eview. S ee Un ited S ta tes v. F a u sto, 484 U .S. 439,
447–48 (1988); Block v. Cm ty. Nu trition In st., 467 U.S.
340, 352 (1984).
Con gr ess’s in t en t t o pr oh ibit ju dicia l review of t h e
Boa rd’s IP R in st it u t ion decision is clear an d u n m ist ak a-
ble. Sect ion 314(d) st a t es “[t ]h e det erm in a t ion by t h e
Direct or whet h er t o in st it u t e an in t er par t es review u n der
t h is sect ion sh a ll be fin a l a n d n on a ppea la ble.” (em ph a sis
a dded.) Th e st at u t e ca lls ou t a specific a gen cy det erm in a-
t ion, a nd expressly proh ibits cou r t s fr om r eviewin g t h a t
decision. “Absen t per su asive in dicat ion s t o t h e con t r a r y,
we presum e Con gr ess sa ys wh at it m ea n s a n d m ean s
wha t it sa ys.” S im m on s v. H im m elreich , 136 S. Ct . 1843,
1848 (2016).
Cu ozzo con fir m s t h is in t erpr et a t ion of § 314(d).
Th ere, t h e Su pr em e Cou r t fou n d t h a t clear a n d con vin c-
in g in dicat ion s overcam e t h e presu m pt ion in fa vor of
ju dicial r eviewabilit y wit h r espect t o IP R in st it u t ion
decisions. Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . a t 2140. To r each t h is
con clusion , t h e Cou rt look ed t o t h e plain la n gu age of t h e
st a t u t e, an d st ressed t h a t wh et h er t h e “P at en t Office
u nla wfully in it iat ed it s agen cy r eview is n ot appeala ble”
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 33 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 5

beca use “th a t is wh a t § 314(d ) sa ys.” Id . a t 2139 (em ph a -


sis added). Cu ozzo also foreclosed a n y n ot ion t h at
§ 314(d) on ly a pplies t o t h e qu est ion of wh et h er t h e pet i-
t ion ra ises a r eason able lik elih ood of in validit y. S ee id . at
2141. In st ead, t h e st at u t e proh ibit s ju dicial r eview of
“qu est ions t h at ar e closely t ied t o t h e applicat ion a n d
in t er pret at ion of st at u t es r elat ed t o t h e P at en t Office’s
decision t o in it ia t e in t er pa rt es r eview.” Id .
Th e pet it ion ’s t im elin ess u n der § 315(b) is pa rt of t h e
Boa rd’s in st it u t ion decision , an d is t h er efore ba rr ed from
ju dicial review. Sect ion 315(b) st a t es t h a t “[a ]n in t er
pa rt es review m a y n ot be in st it u t ed if t h e pet it ion r e-
quest in g t h e pr oceedin g is filed m or e t h a n 1 year a ft er t h e
da t e on wh ich t h e pet it ion er , rea l pa rt y in in t erest , or
pr ivy of t h e pet it ion er is served wit h a com plain t allegin g
in frin gem ent of t h e pat en t .” Th e qu est ion of t im elin ess
does not go t o t h e m erit s of t h e pet it ion , n or does it be-
com e pa rt of t h e P TO’s fin a l det erm in a t ion . In st ead, t h e
P TO eva lu at es t im elin ess wit h in t h e con t ext of t h e P TO’s
pr elim ina ry det erm in a t ion of wh et h er t o in st it u t e IP R at
a ll. Accor din gly, t im elin ess u n der § 315(b) is pla in ly a
quest ion “closely t ied” t o t h e Dir ect or ’s decision t o in st i-
t u t e. In deed, it is a specific r equ ir em en t for “in st it u t ion .”
Mor eover , alt h ou gh J u st ice Alit o disa gr eed wit h t h e
u lt im at e resu lt in Cu ozzo, even h e r ecogn ized t h at “t h e
pet it ion ’s t im elin ess, n o less t h a n t h e pa rt icu la rit y of it s
a llegat ion s, is ‘closely t ied t o t h e a pplica t ion a n d in t er pre-
t a t ion of st a t u t es r elat ed t o t h e P at en t Office’s decision t o
in it ia t e . . . review,’ an d t h e Cou r t says t h at su ch qu es-
t ions ar e u n reviewable.” Id . at 2155 (Alit o, J ., con cu rrin g
in par t a nd dissen t in g in par t ) (a lt era tion in or igin al).
Th is cou rt , h owever, con fin es t h e scope of t h e ju dicial
review ba r in § 314(d) t o “t h e det erm in a t ion by t h e Dir ec-
t or whet her t o in st it u t e IP R a s set fort h in § 314,” wh ich
est a blishes t h e rea son a ble likelih ood st a n dar d for in st i-
t u t in g review. Maj. Op. a t 15. Bu t again , Cu ozzo a lr eady
h eld t ha t § 314(d) is n ot lim it ed t o t h e Direct or’s rea son a -
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 34 Filed: 01/08/2018

6 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

ble likelih ood det erm in a t ion . 136 S. Ct . a t 2141. Th e


Suprem e Cou rt reject ed t h e n ot ion t h a t t h e presu m pt ion
of judicia l r eview per m it s cou r t s t o r eview “a n y issu e
bear in g on t h e P a t en t Office’s pr elim in ar y decision t o
in st it u t e in t er par t es r eview.” Id . Ra t h er, t h e Su pr em e
Cou rt explain ed t h at “Con gr ess h as t old t h e P a tent Office
t o det er m in e wh et h er in t er pa rt es r eview sh ou ld proceed,
a nd it h as ma de t h e agen cy’s decision ‘fin al’ a n d ‘n on a p-
pea la ble.’ § 314(d). Ou r con clu sion t h at cou rt s m a y n ot
revisit t h is in it ial det er m in a t ion gives effect t o t h is st a t u -
t or y com m a n d.” Id .
To sidest ep t h is bin din g preceden t , t h e m ajor it y st a t es
t h a t § 315(b) is a ppea lable becau se “t h e tim e-ba r det er-
m ina t ion m ay be decided fu lly a n d fin ally at t h e in st it u -
t ion st a ge.” Ma j. Op. a t 17. An d t h e m a jorit y su ggest s
t h a t § 314(d) is lim it ed t o “n on -in it ia t ion or prelim in a r y-
on ly m er it s det er m in a t ion s for wh ich u n r eviewabilit y is
com m on in t h e law.” Id . Bu t if § 314(d) on ly applies t o
issu es t ha t a re in cor por at ed in t o t h e fin a l writ t en deci-
sion, t hen t h e a ppea l ba r essen t ially becom es a proh ibi-
t ion on in t erlocu t ory appeal. Th e Su pr em e Cou rt
expressly reject ed t h is in t erpr et a t ion in Cu ozzo. 136 S. Ct .
a t 2140. As t h e Cou rt expla in ed:
Th e dissen t , like t h e pa n el dissen t in t h e Cou rt of
Appeals, wou ld lim it t h e scope of t h e “No Appeal”
pr ovision t o in ter locu tor y a ppea ls, leavin g a cou r t
free t o r eview t h e in it ial decision t o in st itu t e re-
view in t h e con t ext of t h e agen cy's fin a l deci-
sion. We can n ot accept t h is in t erpr et a t ion . It
rea ds in t o t h e pr ovision a limit a tion (t o in t erlocu -
t or y decision s) t h a t t h e la n gu age n owh er e m en -
t ions a n d t h a t is u n n ecessar y. Th e Adm in ist ra t ive
P r ocedu re Act alr eady lim it s r eview t o fin al a gen -
cy decision s. Th e P a t en t Office’s decision t o in it i-
a t e int er pa rt es review is “prelim in a ry,” n ot
“fin a l.” An d t h e a gen cy's decision t o den y a pet i-
t ion is a m a t t er com m it t ed t o t h e P at en t Office’s
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 35 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 7

discr et ion . So, rea d a s lim it ed t o su ch pr elim in a ry


a nd discr et ion a ry decision s, t h e “No Appea l” pro-
vision wou ld seem su perflu ou s.
Id. (cit at ions om it t ed).
Th e m a jorit y con clu des t h a t t h e appeal bar does n ot
a pply t o “lim it s on t h e Direct or ’s st at u t or y au t h orit y t o
in st it u t e,” Ma j Op. at 20. Bu t t h is posit ion wa s clea rly
reject ed in Cu ozzo. 136 S. Ct . a t 2139–40. Even set t in g
a side Cu ozzo, t h e Su pr em e Cou r t a lso reject ed t h is t ype of
st a t u t ory int erpr et a t ion in Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404
(1977).
Br iscoe in volved t h e Vot in g Righ t s Act , wh ich allowed
t h e At t orn ey Gen era l t o det er m in e wh et h er “t h e pr econ di-
t ions for applicat ion of t h e Act t o pa rt icu la r ju r isdict ion s
a re m et .” Id . at 407. Th e st a t u t e provided t h a t “[a]
det erm ina t ion or cert ificat ion of t h e At t orn ey Gen er al or
of t he Direct or of t h e Cen su s u n der t h is s ect ion . . . sh a ll
n ot be reviewa ble in an y cou rt . . . .” Id . at 408. Th e D.C.
Cir cu it explain ed t h at “[i]t is . . . appar en t t h a t even
wher e t he in t en t of Con gress wa s t o preclu de ju dicial
review, a lim it ed ju r isdict ion exist s in t h e cou r t t o r eview
a ct ions wh ich on t h eir face a re pla in ly in excess of st a t u -
t or y au t h orit y.” Id . (qu ot in g Briscoe v. L evi, 535 F .2d
1259, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). Th e D.C. Circu it fu r t h er
con cluded t h at t h is st a t u t e bar red ju dicial r eview of
subst an t ive issu es like “t h e a ct u a l com pu t a t ion s m ade by
t h e Direct or of t h e Cen su s,” bu t n ot “wh et h er t h e Direct or
a ct ed ‘con sist en t wit h t h e appar en t m ea n in g of t h e st at -
u t e.’” Id . a t 408–09 (qu ot in g Br iscoe, 535 F .2d at 1265).
Th e Su prem e Cou rt reversed, a n d fou n d t h a t “[s]ect ion
4(b) of t he Vot in g Righ t s Act cou ld h a r dly proh ibit ju dicial
review in m ore explicit t er m s.” Id . a t 409. Th e Cou r t
st ressed t h at “[t ]h e lan gu a ge is a bsolu t e on it s fa ce an d
would appear t o adm it of n o except ion s.” Id .
Sect ion 314(d) sim ilar ly pr oh ibit s review of “t h e de-
t er m in a t ion by t h e Dir ect or wh et h er t o in st it u t e a n in t er
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 36 Filed: 01/08/2018

8 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

pa rt es review.” L ike t h e st at u t e in Br iscoe, t h e la n gu age


is absolut e a n d provides n o except ion s. Nevert h eless, t h e
m a jorit y con clu des t h at “[t ]h e t im ely filin g of a pet it ion
u nder § 315(b) is a con d ition pr eced en t t o t h e Dir ect or ’s
a ut hor it y t o a ct .” Ma j. Op. a t 20 (em ph asis a dded). Like
t h e D.C. Circu it in Br iscoe, t h e m ajor it y at t em pt s t o
dist inguish bet ween “a decision of t h e Boar d m a de wit h in
it s ju r isdict ion ” a n d “a n order of t h e Boa rd m a de in excess
of it s delega t ed powers.” Briscoe, 535 F .2d a t 1264. Th e
Suprem e Cou rt reject ed t h is r eason in g, an d we sh ou ld
t oo.
Nor does t h e ph r ase “u n der t h is sect ion ” in § 314(d)
lim it t he bar on ju dicia l review t o on ly a su bset of r e-
quir em en t s for in st it u t ion . Th is cou rt ’s m a jorit y opin ion
fin ds t h a t § 314(d) does n ot ba r review of t im elin ess
beca use t h e ph ra se “u n der t h is sect ion ” “lim its t h e r each
of § 314(d) t o t h e det erm in at ion by t h e Dir ect or wh et h er
t o inst it ut e IP R a s set for th in § 314.” Ma j. Op. a t 15
(em ph a sis added). Bu t t o be clea r, t h e ph r a se “u n der t h is
sect ion” sim ply refer s t o t h e fa ct t h a t in t er par t es review
is in st it u t ed u n der § 314. Th e ph r ase does n ot lim it t h e
bar on ju dicial review t o t h e Direct or’s a ssessm en t of t h e
cr it er ia u n der § 314. In deed, Cu ozzo foreclosed t h is
rea din g by h oldin g t h a t t h e bar on ju dicial review ext en ds
t o t h e Direct or ’s assessm en t of t h e r equ irem en t s u n der
§ 312, wh ich is pla in ly a differen t st a t u t or y sect ion t h an
§ 314. 136 S. Ct . at 2141.
II
Th e pla in lan gu a ge of § 314(d) sh ou ld lea d u s t o con -
clude t h at Con gress in t en ded t o pr eclu de ju dicia l r eview
of whet her IP R pet it ion s a re t im ely filed. To t h e ext en t
t h e st a t u t e is u n clea r, t h e h ist ory of t h e AIA dispels a n y
dou bt t ha t § 314(d) ba rs ju dicial review of issu es lik e
t im eliness a n d t h e iden t it y of rea l pa rt ies in in t er est .
Th e differen ce bet ween § 314(d) an d t h e bar on ju di-
cial review for reexa m in a t ion s con firm s t h at Con gr ess
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 37 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 9

in t en ded t o br oadly pr oh ibit r eview of IP R in st it u t ion


decisions. “[A] ch a n ge in ph ra seology” in t h e st at u t e
“crea t es a pr esu m pt ion of a ch a n ge in in t en t .” Cra wfor d
v. Bu rke, 195 U.S. 176, 190 (1904). An d it is u n likely t h at
Con gr ess wou ld en act a st a t u t ory provision u sin g differ -
en t la ngu a ge “wit h ou t t h ereby in t en din g a ch a n ge of
m ea n ing.” Id .; see a lso Merr ill Lyn ch , P ier ce, F en n er &
S m ith Inc. v. Ma n n in g, 136 S. Ct . 1562, 1578 (2016)
(Th om a s, J ., con cu r rin g) (“[W]h en Con gress en a ct s a
st a t u t e t ha t u ses differen t lan gu age fr om a prior st a t u t e,
we n orm ally presu m e t h a t Con gress did so t o con vey a
differen t m ean in g.”).
Even befor e t h e AIA, t h ird-pa rt ies cou ld seek adm in -
ist r at ive pa t en t can cella t ion t h rou gh reexam in at ion .
When t h e P TO r eceives a r equ est for reexam in a t ion , t h e
Direct or m u st det erm in e wh et h er t h e requ est ra ises a
subst an t ial n ew qu est ion of pa t en t a bilit y. An d 35 U.S.C.
§ 303(c) pr ovides t h a t , “[a ] det erm in a t ion by t h e Dir ect or
. . . t ha t n o su bst a n t ia l n ew qu est ion of pat en t abilit y h a s
been ra ised will be fin al an d n on a ppea lable.”1 Accor din g-
ly, t h e st a t u t e specifically ba rs review of t h e n ar r ow issu e
of wh et h er t h e requ est ra ises a “su bst an t ial n ew qu est ion
of pat en t abilit y.” Id . Th e st a t u t e d oes n ot ba r r eview of
t h e ent ire decision t o in it iat e reexam in at ion .
In st a rk con t ra st , Con gr ess u sed m a rk edly differen t
la nguage for in t er pa rt es review an d post -gra n t review
pr oceedin gs. In st ead of bar rin g r eview of t h e Direct or ’s

1 This wa s sim ila rly t ru e u n der t h e old 35 U.S.C.

§ 312(c) (2006), govern in g in t er pa rt es reexam in at ion ,


which ba rred a ppea l of “[a] det erm in a t ion by t h e Dir ect or
pu rsua n t t o su bsect ion (a),” i.e., t h e det erm in a t ion t h at “a
subst an t ial n ew qu est ion of pat en t abilit y affect in g a n y
claim of t he pa t en t con cern ed is ra ised by th e requ est .” 35
U.S.C. § 312(a) (2006).
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 38 Filed: 01/08/2018

10 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

det erm ina t ion of a specific issu e, § 314(d) an d 35 U.S.C.


§ 324(e) broa dly pr oh ibit r eview of t h e Direct or ’s “det er -
m ina t ion . . . wh eth er to in stitu te” review. Accor din gly,
t h ese st a t u t es iden t ify a specific a ction by t h e Dir ect or,
n ot t ied t o t h e r esolu t ion of a specific issu e su ch a s su b-
st a nt ial n ew qu est ion of pat en t abilit y. Su ch lin gu ist ic
differen ces ar e pa rt icu la rly sign ifican t becau se t h e AIA
ret ained § 303(c), wit h it s differ en t la n gu a ge, wit h respect
t o r eexa m in at ion s.
III
Even if we followed th e m a jority’s a ppr oach a n d t ried
t o pa rse ou t wh ich requ ir em en t s for in st it u t ion a re ba r r ed
from ju dicia l review u n der § 314, it st ill m akes n o sen se t o
dist inguish § 315 from §§ 311–314. Th e assu m pt ion t h a t
§ 315 is less closely relat ed t o § 314 t h a n t h e in st it u t ion
cr it er ia of §§ 311–313, see Maj. Op. at 18–19, is sim ply
in cor rect . F or exa m ple, § 312(a)(1) a n d § 312(a)(2) relat e
t o t h e pa ym en t of fees a n d iden t ificat ion of rea l pa rt ies in
in t er est , wh ich t h e m a jorit y a gr ees can n ot be appealed.
Th ese issues, h owever , bear t h e sa m e rela t ion t o t h e
in st it u t ion decision a s t h e in qu ir y u n der § 315.
Un der § 315(b), t h e Dir ect or can n ot in st it u t e review if
t h e pet it ion wa s filed m ore t h an on e yea r a ft er t h e pet i-
t ioner or it s rea l pa r ty in in ter est was ser ved wit h a com -
pla in t allegin g in fr in gem en t . An d pet ition ers h a ve t h e
on us t o iden t ify a ll rea l pa rt ies in in t erest u n der
§ 312(a )(2), wh ich st at es t h at a pet it ion “m a y be con sid-
ered on ly if . . . t h e pet it ion iden t ifies a ll r eal pa rt ies in
in t er est .” Ba sed on t h e pet it ion er’s disclosu re, t h e Dir ec-
t or can a ssess wh et h er an y of t h e pet it ion er ’s rea l pa rt ies
in int erest was ser ved wit h a com pla in t m ore t h a n on e
yea r before t h e pet it ion . Th u s, § 312(a )(2) is pa rt a n d
pa rcel of t he t im elin ess in qu iry u n der § 315.
Th e m ajor it y t r ies t o dist in gu ish bet ween t h e rea l
pa rt y in int erest in qu iry u n der § 312(a)(2) an d § 315(b).
Specifica lly, t h e m a jor it y n ot es t h a t “if a pet it ion fa ils t o
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 39 Filed: 01/08/2018

WI -FI ON E , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP . 11

iden t ify all rea l pa rt ies in in t erest u n der § 312(a )(2), t h e


Direct or can , an d does, a llow t h e pet it ion er t o a dd a r eal
pa rt y in in t erest .” Maj. Op. a t 22 n .11. By con t r a st , a
pet it ion t h at is t im e-bar red u n der § 315 ca n n ot be rect i-
fied. Id .
To illu st ra t e wh y t h is dist in ct ion is fla wed, su ppose
t h a t a pa t en t own er ar gu es t h at a n u n iden t ified t h ir d-
pa rt y, wh o h a s n ot been su ed for in fr in gem en t , is a r eal
pa rt y in in t er est t o th e pet it ion . Th e Dir ect or disa grees
wit h t he pa t en t own er an d in st it u t es r eview. No on e
dispu t es t ha t t h e Direct or ’s decision on rea l par t y in
in t er est is u n reviewable in t h is scen a rio. N ow su ppose
t h e Direct or m a kes t h e exa ct sa m e d eter m in a tion , bu t
wit h respect t o a t h ir d-pa rt y wh o wa s su ed m or e t h an on e
yea r before t h e pet it ion wa s filed. Even t h ou gh t h e Dir ec-
t or is m aking t h e sam e fa ct u a l in qu ir y, h is det er m in at ion
n ow becom es reviewa ble beca u se it im plica t es t h e t im e-
bar . Th is resu lt is illogical. Th e sam e in qu iry does n ot
becom e m ore or less “closely rela t ed” t o t h e in st it u t ion
det erm ina t ion sim ply beca u se t h e resu lt s of t h a t in qu ir y
h ave differ en t con sequ en ces.
Th e fa ct s of t h is appeal u n der scor e wh y t im elin ess
u nder § 315 is a s closely rela t ed t o t h e in st it u t ion decision
a s t h e requirem en t s u n der § 312. Wi-F i On e does n ot
con t en d t ha t Broa dcom it self was ser ved wit h a com plain t
m or e t h an on e yea r before it s pet it ion . Ra t h er , Wi-F i On e
a ssert s t ha t va riou s defen da n t s in a 2010 Texa s la wsu it
were u niden t ified rea l pa rt ies in in t er est t o Broa dcom ’s
pet it ion . On r em a n d, t h e pa n el m u st det er m in e wh et h er
t h e Boa rd proper ly r esolved wh ich par t ies con st it u t e a
rea l par t y in in t erest u n der § 312(a )(2). E ven Wi-F i On e
recogn izes t h a t t h is in qu iry is h igh ly fa ct depen den t , as it
sought br oad-r an gin g discover y in t o a gr eem en t s, pay-
m en t s, an d e-m a il com m u n icat ion s in th e proceedin gs
below. Bu t givin g t h e Boar d wide discr et ion on su ch
pr elim ina ry det erm in a t ion s is wh a t en a bles IP Rs t o
fun ct ion a s an efficien t m et h od of res olvin g validit y
Case: 15-1944 Document: 204-2 Page: 40 Filed: 01/08/2018

12 WI -F I ONE , LLC v. BROADCOM CORP .

issu es. Con gr ess wou ld n ot h ave “giv[en ] t h e P at en t


Office significan t power t o r evisit a n d revise ear lier
pa t en t gr an t s . . . if it h a d t h ou gh t t h a t t h e a gen cy’s fin a l
decision cou ld be u n wou n d u n der som e m in or st a t u t or y
t echn icalit y r ela t ed t o it s pr elim in ar y decision t o in st it u t e
in t er par t es r eview.” Cu ozzo, 136 S. Ct . at 2139–40.
Va ca t in g t h e Boa rd’s in validit y decision on t h e ba sis
of t h resh old qu est ion s lik e t im elin ess or rea l pa rt ies in
in t er est will squ an der t h e t im e a n d r esou rces spen t
a djudica t in g t h e a ct u a l m erit s of t h e pet it ion . Th is is
cou n t er t o t h e AIA’s pu rpose of “providin g qu ick an d cost
effect ive alt ern a tives t o lit iga t ion .” H .R. Rep. No. 112-98,
pt . 1, a t 48 (2011). Con gr ess r ecogn ized t h is issu e, so it
pr ohibit ed t h is cou rt from reviewin g t h e Boa rd’s in st it u -
t ion decision . It is n ot ou r pr eroga t ive t o secon d-gu ess
t h a t policy decision , n or sh ou ld we r ely on t en u ou s st at u -
t or y in t er pret at ion s t o u n der m in e it .
IV
Becau se we do n ot h ave ju risdict ion t o review t h e
Boa rd’s det erm in a t ion t h at Broa dcom ’s pet it ion wa s
t im ely filed, I respect fu lly dissen t .

You might also like