Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OPINION FILED:
The attached opinion announcing the decision of the court in your case was filed on the date indicated above.
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.)
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
______________________
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
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
______________________
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
Decided: J an u ar y 8, 2018
______________________
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
______________________
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
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
______________________
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
______________________
______________________
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
______________________
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
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
______________________
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
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