throbber
No. 21-
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC, OPTIS WIRELESS
`TECHNOLOGY, LLC, AND UNWIRED PLANET
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`MARK D. SELWYN
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real
`Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`
`ALYSON ZUREICK
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`CATHERINE M.A. CARROLL
` Counsel of Record
`SETH P. WAXMAN
`DAVID L. CAVANAUGH
`DAVID M. LEHN
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`catherine.carroll@wilmerhale.com
`
`MARK C. FLEMING
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision
`of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying a peti-
`tion for inter partes review of a patent, where review is
`sought on the grounds that the denial rested on an
`agency rule that exceeds the PTO’s authority under the
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is arbitrary or capri-
`cious, or was adopted without required notice-and-com-
`ment rulemaking.
`
`
`(i)
`
`

`

`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Apple Inc. has no parent company, and no publicly
`held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
`
`DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`United States Court of Appeals (Fed. Cir.):
`A. Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology,
`LLC, No. 2021-1043 (Dec. 21, 2020).
`B. Apple Inc. v. Optis Wireless Technology,
`LLC, No. 2021-1044 (Dec. 21, 2020).
`C. Apple Inc. v. Unwired Planet International
`Ltd., No. 2021-1046 (Dec. 21, 2020).
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................... i
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............. ii
`DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................... ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... vi
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
`OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 4
`JURISDICTION ................................................................. 4
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................. 4
`STATEMENT ..................................................................... 5
`A. Legal Background ................................................. 5
`1. Inter partes review ....................................... 5
`2. The NHK and Fintiv decisions .................... 7
`3. The Director’s adoption of the
`NHK-Fintiv Rule .......................................... 9
`B. Proceedings Below .............................................. 11
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETI-
`TION ............................................................................ 16
`I. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S CONCLUSION
`THAT IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR
`THESE APPEALS CONTRADICTS THIS
`COURT’S PRECEDENT AND IS WRONG ..................... 16
`A. Under This Court’s Precedent, The
`Federal Circuit Has Appellate Jurisdic-
`tion Under §1295(a)(4)(A) Notwith-
`standing §314(d) .................................................. 16
`
`(iii)
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`B. The Federal Circuit’s View That These
`Appeals Are Barred By §314(d) Be-
`cause They Are Closely Tied To An In-
`stitution-Related Statute Contradicts
`This Court’s Precedent ...................................... 18
`C. The Federal Circuit’s View That
`§314(d)’s Exceptions Apply Only To Ap-
`peals From Final Written Decisions
`Cannot Be Squared With This Court’s
`Precedent ............................................................. 23
`II. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HAS TAKEN AN ER-
`RONEOUS APPROACH TO MANDAMUS IN THE
`IPR CONTEXT ............................................................. 26
`A. The Federal Circuit’s Approach To
`Mandamus Has Been Incoherent And
`Wrong ................................................................... 26
`B. If The Federal Circuit Lacks Jurisdic-
`tion Over This Appeal, Mandamus
`Should Issue To Correct The PTO’s De-
`nial Of Apple’s IPR Petitions ............................ 28
`III. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS IMPORTANT
`AND RECURRING ........................................................ 30
`CONCLUSION ................................................................. 34
`APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
`dated December 21, 2020........................................... 1a
`
`
`
`

`

`v
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX B: Opinion of the Patent Trial
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office re IPR2020-00465,
`dated September 17, 2020 ......................................... 5a
`APPENDIX C: Opinion of the Patent Trial
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office re IPR2020-00466,
`dated September 15, 2020 ....................................... 31a
`APPENDIX D: Opinion of the Patent Trial
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office re IPR2020-00642,
`dated September 9, 2020 ......................................... 49a
`APPENDIX E: Order of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`Denying Petition for Panel Rehearing and
`Rehearing En Banc, dated February 26,
`2021 ............................................................................. 65a
`APPENDIX F: Opinion of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
`In re Cisco Systems Inc., 834 F. App’x 571,
`dated October 30, 2020 ............................................. 69a
`APPENDIX G: Statutory Provisions Involved
`28 U.S.C. § 1295 ........................................................ 75a
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................... 79a
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................... 6
`Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308
`(1998) ............................................................................ 24
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 27
`Cisco Systems Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv
`University Ltd., 834 F. App’x 571
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 13
`Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v.
`Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) ............................................................................. 24
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ...................... 3, 13-19, 21-25, 27
`Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno,
`515 U.S. 417 (1995) ..................................................... 16
`Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183
`(2010) ....................................................................... 29-30
`In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................ 24, 27
`In re Power Integrations, Inc., 899 F.3d
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................. 27
`Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)........................ 20
`Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011).......................... 33
`Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) ........................ 25, 30
`
`
`
`

`

`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`Lindahl v. Office of Personnel
`Management, 470 U.S. 768 (1985) ................ 16, 20, 24
`Make the Road New York v. Wolf,
`962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................... 30
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch
`Healthcare System, Inc., 839 F.3d
`1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................. 27
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ......................................................... 6
`Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen
`Pharmaceutica, N.V., 989 F.3d 1375
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................. 14-15, 24-25, 28, 30
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
`LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 24
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct.
`1348 (2018) ............................ 3, 13, 16-17, 19, 21-22, 24
`Serrato v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560 (9th Cir.
`2007) ............................................................................. 30
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call
`Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367
`(2020) ........................................ 5-6, 16-17, 21-22, 27, 31
`United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct.
`1970 (2021) .............................................................. 5, 25
`Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA,
`573 U.S. 302 (2014) ..................................................... 25
`Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
`Service, 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) .................................... 25
`
`
`
`

`

`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`5 U.S.C.
`§706 ................................................................... 13, 17, 19
`§8347 ............................................................................. 20
`28 U.S.C.
`§1254 ............................................................................... 4
`§1295 .................................................. 3, 12, 15-18, 24-25
`35 U.S.C.
`§6 ..................................................................................... 6
`§311 ........................................................................ 5-6, 21
`§312 ............................................................................... 21
`§314 ...................................................................... passim
`§315 ...................................................... 6-7, 11-12, 21, 30
`§316 ............................................................................. 6, 9
`§319 .................................................................... 15, 24-25
`§325 ................................................................................. 7
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) ....................................................... 3
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) ............................................... 5
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041 (daily ed. Mar. 1,
`2011) ............................................................................. 31
`157 Cong. Rec. S1326 (daily ed. Mar. 7,
`2011) ............................................................................. 31
`157 Cong. Rec. S1352 (daily ed. Mar. 8,
`2011) ............................................................................... 5
`157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`2011) ............................................................................. 31
`S. 23, 112th Cong. (2011) ................................................... 31
`
`
`
`

`

`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-
`00019, 2020 WL 2126495 (P.T.A.B.
`Mar. 20, 2020) ........................................................... 8-10
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-
`00019, 2020 WL 2486683 (P.T.A.B.
`May 13, 2020) ......................................................... 10, 32
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC, No.
`IPR2020-00106, 2020 WL 2201828
`(P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020) ......................................... 10, 32
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex
`Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2018-
`00752, 2018 WL 4373643 (P.T.A.B.
`Sept. 12, 2018) ......................................................... 8, 10
`
`REGULATIONS AND AGENCY MATERIALS
`37 C.F.R.
`§42.2 ................................................................................ 6
`§42.4 ................................................................................ 6
`§42.71 ............................................................................ 31
`§42.100 ............................................................................ 5
`§42.107 ............................................................................ 5
`§42.108 ............................................................................ 6
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard
`Operating Procedure 2 (rev. 10, Sept.
`20, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/
`SOP2%20R10%20FINAL.pdf ............................... 9-10
`
`
`
`

`

`x
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
`Unified Patents, “Portal,” https://
`tinyurl.com/xwmajkyx (visited July
`26, 2021) ....................................................................... 10
`McKeown, Scott, District Court Trial
`Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB Dis-
`cretionary Denials (July 24, 2020),
`https://www.patentspostgrant.com/
`district-court-trial-dates-tend-to-slip-
`after-ptab-discretionary-denials/ ............................. 32
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Iancu, No. 20-cv-6128 (N.D.
`Cal.) .............................................................................. 29
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 20-2132,
`-2211-2213, 2021-1033 (Fed. Cir.) ....................... 13, 15
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446 (U.S.) ......................................................... 26
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. 20-
`2040 (Fed. Cir.) ........................................................... 15
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC,
`Nos. 21-1614, -1616-1617, -1673-1677,
`-1738-1741 (Fed. Cir.) ................................................. 15
`Optis Wireless Technology LLC v. Apple
`Inc., No. 19-66 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................ 11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`No. 21-
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC, OPTIS WIRELESS
`TECHNOLOGY, LLC, AND UNWIRED PLANET
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`Apple Inc. respectfully petitions for a writ of certio-
`rari to review the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit in this case.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A decade ago, Congress recognized that the patent
`system had become imbalanced—patents were too easy
`to obtain and too hard to challenge once issued, allowing
`dubious patents to be used to stifle innovation and com-
`petition. In response, Congress enacted a slate of re-
`forms to improve patent quality. One of the principal re-
`forms was the creation of inter partes review (“IPR”),
`an administrative process designed to serve as a more
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`efficient and reliable alternative to litigation for review-
`ing the validity of already-granted patents.
`Through a pair of actions in the past two years, the
`Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
`decreed a rule that has sharply undermined access to
`IPR, contrary to Congress’s express design. That rule—
`referred to here as the NHK-Fintiv Rule—requires the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to deny insti-
`tution of IPR when it determines that IPR would be in-
`efficient in light of pending infringement litigation in-
`volving the same patent. The Board has routinely ap-
`plied the NHK-Fintiv Rule to deny IPR petitions, in-
`cluding several filed by Apple.
`The NHK-Fintiv Rule undermines the role of IPR
`in Congress’s effort to improve the integrity of the pa-
`tent system. The Rule often forecloses the availability
`of IPR in precisely the circumstances when Congress
`thought it would be most useful: when a patent holder
`asserts a dubious patent in a lawsuit claiming infringe-
`ment. Congress gave the PTO no authority to decline to
`institute IPR merely because a parallel infringement
`suit was pending, even though Congress did grant such
`authority when other types of proceedings involving the
`same patent are ongoing. With respect to infringement
`litigation, Congress imposed only one restriction—that
`IPR petitions be filed within one year of the complaint
`alleging infringement, a requirement Apple met here.
`The NHK-Fintiv Rule also yields arbitrary results.
`For example, the Rule requires the Board to deny IPR
`petitions when it determines that IPR would be ineffi-
`cient based on its speculation about when the infringe-
`ment trial will conclude, even though trials are fre-
`quently rescheduled—and often not until after it is too
`late for the Board to correct its denial.
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`This petition concerns the authority of the Federal
`Circuit to act when the Board denies an IPR petition on
`a basis (like the NHK-Fintiv Rule) that is challenged as
`unlawful. Here, the Board applied the NHK-Fintiv Rule
`to deny Apple’s IPR petitions, and like other thwarted
`IPR petitioners, Apple appealed the denials to the Fed-
`eral Circuit. And like others, Apple sought to argue that
`the denials were unlawful because the Rule exceeds the
`PTO’s authority under the Leahy-Smith American In-
`vents Act, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), is arbitrary and
`capricious, and was adopted without the notice-and-com-
`ment rulemaking required by the Administrative Proce-
`dure Act (“APA”). Although the Federal Circuit has ju-
`risdiction over such appeals under the plain language of
`28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(4)(A), the Federal Circuit—as it has
`done in all such appeals—dismissed for lack of jurisdic-
`tion based on 35 U.S.C. §314(d), and held in the alterna-
`tive that mandamus relief was unavailable.
`The Federal Circuit’s conclusion that §314(d) elimi-
`nates its appellate jurisdiction conflicts with this Court’s
`decisions in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131 (2016), and SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138
`S. Ct. 1348 (2018), which make clear that, consistent with
`the APA and background principles regarding the avail-
`ability of judicial review, §314(d) does not bar the Fed-
`eral Circuit from hearing challenges to Board decisions
`denying institution when review is sought on the
`grounds that the denial rested on a rule that exceeds the
`PTO’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, or
`was adopted without legally required procedures. Fur-
`ther, the Federal Circuit’s refusal to grant mandamus
`demonstrates the need for this Court’s guidance about
`the availability of mandamus relief in this context.
`The Federal Circuit’s position, if not corrected, will
`permit the PTO to continue to constrict the availability
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`of IPR far beyond what Congress intended by denying
`IPR petitions—free from any judicial scrutiny—based
`on the unlawful NHK-Fintiv Rule or other similarly un-
`lawful grounds. If the Federal Circuit’s position stands,
`no court could review the PTO’s decision even if the
`agency denied an IPR petition based on a coin flip or a
`view that all IPR petitions should be denied automati-
`cally. By treating such decisions as if they are immune
`from judicial review, the Federal Circuit’s position en-
`dangers a tool that Congress determined to be essential
`to the integrity of the patent system.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The court of appeals’ decision (App. 1a-4a) is un-
`published but available at 2020 WL 7753630. The deci-
`sions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (App. 5a-30a,
`31a-48a, and 49a-64a) are unpublished but available at
`2020 WL 5580473, 2020 WL 5539827, and 2020 WL
`5413619.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The court of appeals issued its decision on December
`21, 2020, and denied Apple’s rehearing petition on Feb-
`ruary 26, 2021 (App. 65a-67a). On March 19, 2020, this
`Court extended the deadline to file petitions for writs of
`certiorari to 150 days from the date of the lower court
`judgment or order denying rehearing. This Court has
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).
`
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Section 314 of title 35, U.S. Code, and section 1295 of
`title 28, U.S. Code, are reprinted in the appendix to this
`petition. App. 75a-79a.
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`
`STATEMENT
`A. Legal Background
`1. Inter partes review
`A decade ago, Congress became “concerned about
`overpatenting and its diminishment of competition,”
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367,
`1374 (2020), concluding that “questionable patents
`[were] too easily obtained and too difficult to challenge,”
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 39-40 (2011) (“House Report”).
`In response, Congress enacted the AIA to “establish a
`more efficient and streamlined patent system that will
`improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and coun-
`terproductive litigation costs.” House Report at 40. A
`centerpiece of the AIA’s reforms was IPR, an adminis-
`trative process by which the Board reconsiders the pa-
`tentability of a previously granted patent. 35 U.S.C.
`§311; see Thryv, 140 S. Ct. at 1370. Congress intended
`IPR to provide a “cost effective alternative[] to litiga-
`tion” over patent validity, House Report at 40, 48, that
`takes advantage of “the expertise of the Patent Office on
`questions of patentability,” 157 Cong. Rec. S1352 (daily
`ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Udall); see also, e.g.,
`House Report at 40 (IPR “limits unnecessary and coun-
`terproductive litigation costs”).
`Several features of IPR promote Congress’s goals
`by offering a more streamlined alternative to litigation.
`For example, in IPR, a patent may be canceled as
`unpatentable “only” on grounds of novelty or
`nonobviousness. 35 U.S.C. §311(b). IPR is governed by
`a strict schedule to ensure expeditious resolution. See
`35 U.S.C. §§314(b), 316(a)(11); see also 37 C.F.R.
`§§42.100, 42.107; United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S.
`Ct. 1970, 1977 (2021). Unpatentability may be shown in
`IPR by a preponderance of the evidence, 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`
`§316(e), whereas in litigation invalidity must be shown
`by clear and convincing evidence, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i
`Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011). And although patent-
`validity issues in infringement suits are decided by lay
`jurors who typically render a general verdict, IPRs are
`decided by administrative patent judges with “technical
`expertise and experience,” who “contribute to the public
`confidence by providing more consistent and higher
`quality
`final written decisions” on patentability.
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320,
`1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019), rev’d on other grounds, 141 S. Ct.
`1970; see 35 U.S.C. §§6(a), 318(a).
`The IPR process begins with a petition to institute
`IPR, which may be filed by anyone who is not the pa-
`tent’s owner. 35 U.S.C. §311(a). The petition may ask
`the Board to cancel one or more claims of a particular
`patent. Id. §311(b). The AIA vests the Director of the
`PTO with the authority to grant or deny IPR petitions.
`Id. §314. The Director has delegated this authority to
`the Board. 37 C.F.R. §42.4(a); see id. §§42.2, 42.108.
`“The AIA sets out prerequisites for institution.”
`Thryv, 140 S. Ct. at 1371. Several of those provisions
`specifically address the conduct of IPR in the face of par-
`allel litigation involving the same patent. The AIA ex-
`pressly provides that when there is a pending overlap-
`ping infringement suit, IPR “may not be instituted if the
`petition … is filed more than 1 year after the date on
`which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of
`the petitioner is served with” the infringement com-
`plaint. 35 U.S.C. §315(b). The AIA further specifies that
`the Director “may not” institute IPR if the petitioner
`previously “filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`a claim of the [same] patent,” id. §315(a)(1), but makes
`that bar inapplicable if the petitioner’s previous chal-
`lenge to the patent was made by counterclaim to an
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`
`infringement suit, id. §315(a)(3). And if the petitioner
`files a civil action after petitioning for IPR, the lawsuit
`is “automatically stayed”—unless and “until” the patent
`owner asserts an infringement claim against the IPR pe-
`titioner, at which point the stay is lifted and the infringe-
`ment litigation may proceed, id. §315(a)(2)(B).
`The AIA thus expressly recognizes that IPR may
`proceed in parallel with infringement litigation involving
`the same patent, as long as the IPR petition is filed
`within one year after the petitioner was served with the
`infringement complaint. That contrasts sharply with
`how the AIA handles other types of parallel proceed-
`ings, which the statute expressly entrusts to the Direc-
`tor’s discretion. The AIA states that “[i]n determining
`whether to institute [IPR], the Director may … reject
`the petition … because[] the same or substantially the
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented
`to the Office.” Id. §325(d). And the AIA provides that
`the Director “may … stay … or terminat[e]” IPR “if an-
`other proceeding or matter involving the [same] patent
`is before the Office.” Id. §315(d). The AIA contains no
`provision similarly authorizing the Director to decline to
`conduct IPR based on overlap with a pending infringe-
`ment lawsuit.
`The AIA states that the Director’s “determination
`… whether to institute an inter partes review … shall be
`final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. §314(d).
`
`2. The NHK and Fintiv decisions
`In 2018, the Board for the first time asserted author-
`ity to deny IPR petitions based on the pendency of in-
`fringement litigation involving the same patent claims—
`even where the IPR petition was filed within §315(b)’s
`one-year
`limit and meets all other
`statutory
`
`
`
`

`

`8
`
`prerequisites. In NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Tech-
`nologies, Inc., the Board declared that “the advanced
`state of the [overlapping] district court proceeding is an
`additional factor that weighs in favor of denying the
`[IPR] Petition.” No. IPR2018-00752, 2018 WL 4373643,
`at *7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018). In that case, trial in a
`pending patent-infringement suit in which the IPR peti-
`tioner was defending against the infringement claims by
`asserting “the same prior art and arguments” as it raised
`in its IPR petition was “set to begin” about six months
`before the IPR proceeding would “conclude.” Id. The
`Board determined that conducting an IPR trial in such
`circumstances “would be an inefficient use of Board re-
`sources.” Id. As authority for denying the IPR petition
`based on the pending overlapping litigation, the Board
`cited 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Id. That provision states that
`“the Director may not” institute IPR “unless” the Direc-
`tor finds a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims chal-
`lenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a).
`The Board subsequently elaborated on NHK in Ap-
`ple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., enumerating six “factors” it
`would “weigh” in deciding whether to deny an IPR peti-
`tion in light of pending overlapping infringement litiga-
`tion, No. IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495, at *2 (Mar.
`20, 2020):
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evi-
`dence exists that one may be granted if a pro-
`ceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the
`Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final
`written decision;
`3.
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the
`court and the parties;
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`
`4. overlap between issues raised in the peti-
`tion and in the parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in
`the parallel proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s
`exercise of discretion, including the merits.
`Id. These factors, the Board explained, “relate to
`whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the
`exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an
`earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at *3.
`The Board stated that each factor is “non-dispositive”
`and that, “in evaluating [them], the Board takes a holis-
`tic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system
`are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at
`*2-3.
`None of the six Fintiv factors appears in the AIA.
`As in NHK, the Board purported to derive authority for
`them from §314(a). See Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *1-
`3. The Board also cited §316(b), which provides that “[i]n
`prescribing regulations under [§316], the Director shall
`consider the effect of any such regulation on the econ-
`omy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient ad-
`ministration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to
`timely complete proceedings instituted under this chap-
`ter.” See Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *3.
`
`3. The Director’s adoption of the NHK-Fintiv
`Rule
`“[B]y default,” Board decisions are not binding in
`later cases. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard
`Operating Procedure 2 (“SOP-2”), at 3, 8-9 (rev. 10 Sept.
`20, 2018). The Director, however, has authority to des-
`ignate Board decisions as “precedential,” which makes
`them “binding” on the Board “in subsequent matters
`
`
`
`

`

`10
`
`involving similar facts or issues.” Id. at 11. Without
`providing public notice or opportunity for comment, and
`without providing any explanation for his action, the Di-
`rector designated NHK “precedential” in May 2019 and
`did the same with Fintiv in May 2020, see 2018 WL
`4373643; 2020 WL 2126495. The Director thus made
`those decisions binding on the Board and thereby
`adopted the NHK-Fintiv Rule, which embodies the pol-
`icy that IPR petitions must be denied where the Board
`determines that conducting IPR would be inefficient in
`light of pending overlapping infringement litigation.
`Since then, the Board has applied the NHK-Fintiv
`Rule to deny hundreds of IPR petitions. See Unified Pa-
`tents, “Portal,” https://tinyurl.com/xwmajkyx. For ex-
`ample, in Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC, the
`Board denied a timely IPR petition pursuant to the
`NHK-Fintiv Rule where the trial in an infringement
`lawsuit involving overlapping issues was set for seven
`months before the IPR would have ended. No. IPR2020-
`00106, 2020 WL 2201828, at *6 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020).
`In Fintiv itself, the Board denied Apple’s timely IPR pe-
`tition pursuant to the NHK-Fintiv Rule, explaining:
`[T]rial is scheduled to begin two months
`before we would reach a final decision …,
`the District Court has expended effort re-
`solving substantive issues in the case, the
`identical claims are challenged based on
`the same prior art in both the Petition and
`in the District Court, and the defendant in
`District Court and the Petitioner here are
`the same party.
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL
`2486683, at *3, *7 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020). In both cases
`(as in many others), after the Board denied the IPR
`
`
`
`

`

`11
`
`petitions in reliance on upcoming trial dates in the in-
`fringement suits, the trials were postponed. And had
`the Board instituted the IPR in Fintiv, the Board would
`have completed IPR before the district court trial oc-
`curred—indeed the trial still has not occurred.
`
`B. Proceedings Below
`This case is like numerous others that have occurred
`since the PTO adopted the NHK-Fintiv Rule. In Feb-
`ruary 2020, Apple filed three IPR petitions challenging
`patent claims that respondents had accused Apple of in-
`fringing in a pending lawsuit. See App. 50a-51a, 60a;
`App. 32a, 43a; App. 6a, 25a; Compl., Optis Wireless Tech.
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 19-66, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`25, 2019).
`Although Apple’s petitions were timely under
`§315(b), the Board denied them pursuant the NHK-Fin-
`tiv Rule. App. 62a-63a; App. 46a-47a; App. 29a. Stating
`that it was “bound by Fintiv and NHK” because they
`had been “designated as precedential” by the Director,
`the Board refused to consider Apple’s arguments that
`the NHK-Fintiv Rule exceeds the Director’s authority
`under the AIA, is arbitrary and capricious, and was
`adopted without the notice-and-comment rulemaking
`required by the APA. App. 61a; accord App. 44a; App.
`27a.1 Applying the Rule, the Board denied the petitions
`because it determined that IPR “would be an inefficient
`
`
`1 See No. IPR2020-00642, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response, pt.II.A, Dkt. No. 34 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2020);
`No. IPR2020-00466, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Prelimi-
`nary Response, pt.II.A, Dkt. No. 66 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2020); No.
`IPR2020-00465, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, pt.II.A, Dkt. No. 99 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2020).
`
`
`
`

`

`12
`
`use of Board resources” given the status of the parallel
`lawsuit. App. 62a-63a; accord App. 46a-47a; App. 29a.
`Apple appealed the three denials to the U.S. Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket