No.
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`VIRNETX INC. AND LEIDOS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.;
`APPLE INC.; BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC; AND
`KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
`DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`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
`————
`BRADLEY WAYNE CALDWELL
`NAVEEN MODI
`Counsel of Record
`JASON DODD CASSADY
`JOHN AUSTIN CURRY
`STEPHEN B. KINNAIRD
`CALDWELL CASSADY
`JOSEPH E. PALYS
`& CURRY LLP
`IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV
`DANIEL ZEILBERGER
`2121 N. Pearl Street
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`Suite 1200
`2050 M Street NW
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 888-4848
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 551-1700
`Counsel for Petitioner
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`VirnetX Inc.
`Counsel for Petitioner
`VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
`
`WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
`
`

`

`DONALD URRABAZO
`URRABAZO LAW, P.C.
`2029 Century Park East
`Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 388-9099
`
`ANDY TINDEL
`MANN TINDEL & THOMPSON
`112 E. Line Street
`Suite 304
`Tyler, TX 75702
`(903) 596-0900
`Counsel for Leidos, Inc.
`(Petitioner with respect to
`Fed. Cir. Case No. 21-1672)
`
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`This petition concerns the Federal Circuit’s construc-
`tion of two important statutes: the America Invents Act
`(“AIA”) and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”).
`1. The AIA created “inter partes review,” an agency
`procedure that allows issued patents to be challenged be-
`fore the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). To pre-
`vent undue interference with Article III litigation, the
`statute bars parties from seeking inter partes review “if
`the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1
`year after” the petitioner was “served with a complaint al-
`leging infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (em-
`phasis added). The statute also provides that, where a
`party “properly files a petition” for inter partes review, it
`may be “join[ed] as a party” to an already-instituted inter
`partes review proceeding. § 315(c) (emphasis added). The
`statute provides that joinder—as opposed to the filing of
`the petition itself—is not subject to the one-year time
`limit: Section § 315(b)’s one-year time limit does “not apply
`to a request for joinder.” § 315(b) (emphasis added). The
`first question presented is:
`Whether the Federal Circuit erred in upholding joinder
`of a party under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), where the joined party
`did not “properly file[ ] a petition” for inter partes review
`within the statutory time limit.
`2. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act establishes
`“the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an act-
`ing official to perform the functions and duties” of a vacant
`presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed office. 5
`U.S.C. § 3347(a); see § 3345(a). In United States v. Ar-
`threx, 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), this Court held that Article
`II requires that PTAB decisions be subject to review by a
`presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officer—spe-
`cifically, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`(i)
`
`

`

`ii
`Office. When petitioner VirnetX sought that review here,
`the position of Director was vacant. Nor was there a tem-
`porary officer who had been authorized to perform the Di-
`rector’s functions and duties in conformity with the
`FVRA’s exclusive mechanisms. Instead, the PTO had
`adopted its own succession plan that purported to author-
`ize the Commissioner for Patents—who is neither ap-
`pointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate—to
`perform the Director’s functions and duties, including re-
`view of PTAB decisions under Arthrex. VirnetX’s request
`for Director review was thus denied by the Commissioner
`for Patents. The second question presented is:
`Whether the Commissioner’s exercise of the Director’s
`review authority pursuant to an internal agency delega-
`tion violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iii
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
`Petitioner VirnetX Inc. was the patent owner in the
`proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and
`the appellant in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-
`2271 and 20-2272; it was a plaintiff in the district court and
`an appellee in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. No. 21-1672.
`Petitioner Leidos, Inc. was a plaintiff in the district
`court and an appellee in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir.
`No. 21-1672.
`Respondent Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.,
`was a petitioner in the proceedings before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board and an appellee in the court of appeals
`in Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2271 and 20-2272.
`Respondent Apple Inc. was a petitioner in proceedings
`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and an appellee
`in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2271 and 20-
`2272; it was the defendant in the district court and the ap-
`pellant in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. No. 21-1672.
`Respondent Black Swamp IP, LLC was a petitioner in
`proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and
`an appellee in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. No. 20-2272.
`Respondent Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of
`Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, was an inter-
`venor in the court of appeals in Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2271 and
`20-2272. Director Vidal succeeded Commissioner for Pa-
`tents Andrew Hirshfeld, Performing the Functions and
`Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellec-
`tual Property and Director of the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office, as intervenor in those appeals.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iv
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Petitioner VirnetX Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`VirnetX Holding Corporation.
`Petitioner Leidos, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`Leidos Holdings, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`v
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The following proceedings are directly related to this
`case within the meaning of Rule 14.1(b)(iii):
`• Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. VirnetX,
`IPR2015-01046 (P.T.A.B.), final written decisions
`entered on July 14, 2020 (on remand) and September
`9, 2016. The following appellate proceedings arose
`out of this proceeding: In re VirnetX Inc., No. 16-119
`(Fed. Cir.), judgment entered March 18, 2016; Vir-
`netX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.,
`No. 17-1368 (Fed. Cir.), judgment entered July 8,
`2019; and VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Mas-
`ter Fund, Ltd., No. 20-2271 (Fed. Cir.), judgment en-
`tered March 30, 2023. Apple, Inc. was joined to
`IPR2015-01046 on January 25, 2016 after filing a pe-
`tition for inter partes review in Apple, Inc. v. Vir-
`netX Inc., IPR2016-00062 (P.T.A.B.).
`• Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. VirnetX,
`IPR2015-01047 (P.T.A.B.), final written decisions
`entered on July 14, 2020 (on remand) and September
`9, 2016. The following appellate proceedings arose
`out of this proceeding: In re VirnetX Inc., No. 16-119
`(Fed. Cir.), judgment entered March 18, 2016; Vir-
`netX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.,
`No. 17-1383 (Fed. Cir.), judgment entered July 8,
`2019; and VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Mas-
`ter Fund, Ltd., No. 20-2272 (Fed. Cir.), judgment en-
`tered March 30, 2023. Apple, Inc. was joined to
`IPR2015-01047 on January 25, 2016 after filing a pe-
`tition for inter partes review in Apple, Inc. v. Vir-
`netX Inc., IPR2016-00063 (P.T.A.B.). Black Swamp
`IP, LLC was joined to IPR2015-01047 on February
`4, 2016 after filling a petition for inter partes review
`
`
`
`

`

`vi
`in Black Swamp IP, LLC v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2016-
`00167 (P.T.A.B.).
`• VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00855-RWS
`(E.D. Tex.), judgments entered January 6, 2021 (on
`remand), and August 30, 2018. The following appel-
`late proceedings arose out of the district-court ac-
`tion: In re Apple Inc., No. 18-123 (Fed. Cir.), judg-
`ment entered February 22, 2018; VirnetX Inc. v. Ap-
`ple Inc., No. 19-1050 (Fed. Cir.), judgment entered
`November 22, 2019; and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-1672 (Fed. Cir.), judgment entered March 31,
`2023. The district-court action was consolidated for
`a trial with VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:10-cv-
`417 (E.D. Tex.), on March 30, 2015; the order consol-
`idating the two cases was vacated on July 29, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinions Below .............................................................
`Statement of Jurisdiction ...........................................
`Constitutional, Statutory, and
`Regulatory Provisions Involved ................................
`Introduction ..................................................................
`Statement ......................................................................
`I.
`Statutory Background ....................................
`A. The AIA’s Inter Partes
`Review Regime .........................................
`B. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act ......
`II. Proceedings Below ..........................................
`A. VirnetX’s Patented Technology .............
`B. District-Court Proceedings ....................
`1. The First Infringement Action .........
`2. The Current Infringement
`Action ....................................................
`C. IPR Proceedings ......................................
`1. Initial PTAB Proceedings ..................
`2. The First IPR Appeals .......................
`3. IPR Remand Proceedings and
`Remand for Director Review ............
`4. Commissioner Hirshfeld Denies
`VirnetX’s Request for Director
`Review ...................................................
`D. The Decisions Below ................................
`1. The IPR Appeals
`(Nos. 20-2271, 20-2272) .......................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(vii)
`
`
`
`Page
`1
`2
`
`2
`2
`4
`4
`
`4
`5
`7
`7
`8
`8
`
`8
`9
`9
`11
`
`12
`
`12
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`viii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`2. The District-Court Appeal
`(No. 21-1672) ........................................
`Reasons for Granting the Petition ............................
`I. The IPR Joinder Question
`Merits Review ..................................................
`A. The Federal Circuit’s Construction
`Thwarts the AIA’s Time Limitation
`and Invites Abuse ....................................
`B. The Federal Circuit’s Construction
`Defies Statutory Text, Structure,
`History, and Purpose ..............................
`C. The PTO’s Defiance of the Statute
`Cannot Be Sustained ...............................
`II. The FVRA Question Merits Review .............
`A. The Federal Circuit’s Construction
`Eviscerates the FVRA and
`the Appointments Clause ........................
`B. The Issue Is Important
`and Recurring ...........................................
`C. The Federal Circuit Misconstrued
`the FVRA and This Court’s
`Arthrex Decision ......................................
`Conclusion .....................................................................
`
`of Appeals in Nos. 20-2271, -2272
`(Mar. 30, 2023) .........................................................
`
`Page
`
`14
`14
`
`14
`
`14
`
`17
`
`21
`24
`
`24
`
`27
`
`30
` 35
`
`1a
`
`Appendix A – Opinion of the Court
`Appendix B – Opinion of the Court
`Appendix C – Opinion of the Court
`
`of Appeals in No. 21-1672 (Mar. 31, 2023) ........... 27a
`
`of Appeals in Nos. 17-1368, -1383
`(July 8, 2019) ............................................................ 30a
`
`

`

`Page
`
`for Patents Denying Review in
`IPR2015-01046, -01047
`(Oct. 29, 2021) ......................................................... 55a
`
`Remand of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board in IPR2015-01046 (July 14, 2020).............. 58a
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
`IPR2015-01046 (Sept. 9, 2016) .............................. 86a
`
`and Appeal Board Denying Rehearing
`in IPR2015-01046 (Oct. 20, 2016) .......................... 121a
`
`ix
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Appendix D – Order of the Commissioner
`Appendix E – Final Written Decision on
`Appendix F – Final Written Decision of the
`Appendix G – Order of the Patent Trial
`Appendix H – Order of the Patent Trial and
`Appendix I – Order of the Patent Trial
`Appendix J – Final Written Decision on
`Appendix K – Final Written Decision of the
`Appendix L – Order of the Patent Trial
`Appendix M – Order of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Granting Institution and
`Joinder in IPR2016-00062 (Jan. 25, 2016) ........... 129a
`
`and Appeal Board Denying Rehearing
`in IPR2015-01046 (Feb. 26, 2016) ......................... 139a
`
`Remand of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board in IPR2015-01047 (July 14, 2020).............. 143a
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
`IPR2015-01047 (Sept. 9, 2016) .............................. 175a
`
`and Appeal Board Denying Rehearing
`in IPR2015-01047 (Oct. 20, 2016) .......................... 214a
`
`Appeal Board Granting Institution and
`Joinder in IPR2016-00063 (Jan. 25, 2016) ........... 223a
`
`

`

`x
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`Appeal Board Denying Rehearing in
`IPR2015-01047 (Feb. 26, 2016) ............................. 233a
`
`Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
`in No. 16-119 (Mar. 18, 2016) ................................. 237a
`
`Remanding for Director Rehearing in
`Nos. 21-1672, 20-2271, 20-2272
`(Aug. 19, 2021) ......................................................... 239a
`
`Appendix N – Order of the Patent Trial and
`Appendix O – Order of the Court of Appeals
`Appendix P – Order of the Court of Appeals
`Appendix Q – Opinion of the Court
`Appendix R – Verdict Form (Oct. 30, 2020) ............. 276a
`Appendix S – District Court Judgment
`Appendix T – Order of the Court
`Appendix U – Order of the Court
`Appendix V – Order of the Court
`Appendix W – Relevant Constitutional,
`
`of Appeals in No. 19-1050 (Nov. 22, 2019) ........... 243a
`
`(Jan. 6, 2021) ............................................................ 278a
`
`of Appeals Denying Rehearing in
`Nos. 20-2271, -2272 (June 22, 2023) ...................... 280a
`
`of Appeals Granting Stay
`in No. 21-1672 (May 5, 2023) ................................. 283a
`
`of Appeals Denying Rehearing in
`No. 21-1672 (June 27, 2023) ................................... 285a
`
`Statutory, and Regulatory Provisions ............... 287a
`
`

`

`xi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`18
`
`16
`
`18
`
`29
`
`28
`
`29
`
`CASES
`Allen v. Siebert,
`552 U.S. 3 (2007) .................................................
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..............
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`35 F.4th 1328
`(Fed. Cir. 2022) ................... 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34
`Artuz v. Bennett,
`531 U.S. 4 (2000) .................................................
`Asylumworks v. Mayorkas,
`590 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2022) .....................
`Behring Reg’l Ctr. LLC v. Wolf :
`544 F. Supp. 3d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...............
`No. 21-16421, 2022 WL 602883
`(9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2022) ....................................
`Bullock v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.:
`489 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (D. Mont. 2020) ..............
`No. 20-36129, Dkt. 22
` (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) ................................
`Central Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz,
`546 U.S. 356 (2006) .............................................
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. 261 (2016) ........................................... 4, 15
`Drug Plastics & Glass Co. v. NLRB,
`44 F.3d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...........................
`
`29
`
`29
`
`22
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`xii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`29
`
`19
`
`25
`
`29
`
`29
`
`Edmond v. United States,
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) .............................................
`FAA v. Cooper,
`566 U.S. 284 (2012) .............................................
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`973 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............. 5, 11, 19, 22
`Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber
`Co., 331 U.S. 111 (1947) .....................................
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Account.
`Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) ............... 27, 29
`Freytag v. Comm’r,
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) .............................................
`Iancu v. Brunetti,
`139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) .........................................
`Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n,
`772 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) ..........................
`L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli:
`442 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) .................... 28, 32
`No. 20-5141, 2020 WL 5358686
`(D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2020) ..............................
`Lopez Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,
`No. 22-451 (U.S.) ................................................
`Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
`Co., 981 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............... 12, 22
`NLRB v. Newark Elec. Corp.,
`14 F.4th 152 (2d Cir. 2021) ................................
`NLRB v. SW General, Inc.,
`580 U.S. 288 (2017) ................... 5-7, 26, 28, 29, 31-33
`Pace v. DiGuglielmo,
`544 U.S. 408 (2005) .............................................
`
`25
`
`28
`
`21
`
`32
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`xiii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`21
`
`29
`
`29
`
`20
`
`United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive
`Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) .............
`Public Emps. for Env’t Resp. v.
`Nat’l Park Serv.:
`No. 19-cv-3629, 2022 WL 1657013
` (D.D.C. May 24, 2022) ..................................
`No. 22-5205, 2022 WL 4086993
`(D.C. Cir. Sept. 2, 2022) ................................
`Russello v. United States,
`464 U.S. 16 (1983) ...............................................
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................
`SW General, Inc. v. NLRB,
`796 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .......................... 31, 33
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) .........................................
`United States v. Arthrex,
`141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021) .................. 4, 5, 12, 26, 34, 35
`United States v. Mendoza,
`581 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) ...............
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.:
`324 F. Supp. 3d 836 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ..............
`748 F. App’x 332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 ....................... 2, 5, 24, 26, 27, 29
`
`21-23
`
`22
`
`18
`
`8
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`xiv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND RULES
`Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998,
`Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 151, 112 Stat.
`2681, 2681-611 (codified as amended at
`5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d):
`5 U.S.C. § 3345 ....................................... 3, 6, 26, 32
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(a) ....................................... 7, 12, 24
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(1) ........................................... 6, 7
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(2) ......................................... 6, 26
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(a)(3) ......................................... 6, 26
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(b)(1) ........................................ 7, 28
`5 U.S.C. § 3345(c)(2) ...........................................
`31
`5 U.S.C. § 3346 ....................................... 6, 26, 28, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3347 .............................................. 3, 6, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3347(a) ............... 6, 7, 12, 24, 31, 33, 34
`5 U.S.C. § 3348 .................................. 6, 7, 14, 31-34
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(a) ..................................... 14, 24, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(a)(2) ........................ 7, 13, 24, 30, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(a)(2)(A) .................................. 31, 34
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)(1) ........................................ 6, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)(2) ........................................ 6, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3348(e) ............................................. 7, 32
`5 U.S.C. § 3349 ................................................. 26, 31
`5 U.S.C. § 3349a ..................................................
`31
`5 U.S.C. § 3349a(b) .............................................
`6
`5 U.S.C. § 3349d ..................................................
`31
`Patent Act (as amended by the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011)):
`2
`35 U.S.C. § 3 ........................................................
`5
`35 U.S.C. § 3(a)(1) ...............................................
`35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(1) ............................................ 5, 12
`
`

`

`xv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(2) ..............................................
`5
`35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(3)(B) ...................................... 12, 25
`35 U.S.C. § 6 ......................................................
`2
`35 U.S.C. § 6(a) ................................................. 5, 34
`35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) ......................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 6(c) ............................................ 5, 34, 35
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .............................................. 2, 4, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ....................................... 4, 15, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 311(c) ................................................
`20
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ..................................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .................................................. 4, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................. 2, 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ...............................................
`20
`35 U.S.C. § 314(d) ...............................................
`22
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................. 2, 4, 11, 21, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................. 4, 5, 9-11, 15, 17-21, 23
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ........................... 4, 11, 15, 17-20
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .................................................... 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 317 ..................................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 318 ..................................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ...............................................
`5
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .................................................... 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c) ..............................................
`19
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ......................................................
`32
`5 U.S.C. § 9807(c)(1) ................................................
`25
`5 U.S.C. § 9807(c)(2) ................................................
`25
`7 U.S.C. § 7996(e)(2) ................................................
`25
`10 U.S.C. § 113(d) ....................................................
`25
`22 U.S.C. § 2651a(a)(4) ............................................
`25
`22 U.S.C. § 4865(a)(2) ..............................................
`25
`
`

`

`12
`
`xvi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`22 U.S.C. § 4865(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) (2018) ...................
`25
`28 U.S.C. § 508(b) ....................................................
`34
`28 U.S.C. § 510 .........................................................
`25
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................
`2
`28 U.S.C. § 2244 .......................................................
`18
`31 U.S.C. § 1344(d)(3) .............................................
`25
`41 U.S.C. § 3304(a) ..................................................
`25
`Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 4745, 113 Stat. 1501,
`1501A-587 (1999) ................................................
`Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 9301(e)(2)(B)(ii)(II),
`25
`136 Stat. 2395, 3881-3882 (2022) .......................
`18
`8 C.F.R. § 245.10(a) .................................................
`20
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ...............................................
`2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ....................................................
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ............................................. 4, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(1) ..........................................
`23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A) .....................................
`21
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(B) .....................................
`21
`EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
`MATERIALS
`83 Fed. Reg. 13,862 (Apr. 2, 2018) ........................
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Agency
`Organization Order 45-1 (June 24, 2002) ........
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Off., Agency
`Organization Order 45-1 (Nov. 7, 2016) ........ 2, 13
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2013-00354, Paper No. 20
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2013) ....................................
`
`9
`
`28
`
`13
`
`

`

`xvii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`10
`
`15
`
`19
`
`17
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00171, Paper No. 57
`(P.T.A.B. July 14, 2014) .....................................
`Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am.,
`Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper No. 152
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) ...................................
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ........................ 4, 17
`S. Rep. No. 105-250 .................................................
`33
`154 Cong. Rec. S9988
`(daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008) ....................................
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041-1042
`(daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) ......................................
`157 Cong. Rec. S1375
`(daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ......................................
`168 Cong. Rec. S1987 (Apr. 5, 2022) .....................
`H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, 116th
`Cong., Policy and Supporting
`Positions (Dec. 2020) .........................................
`House Judiciary Transcript for Mark-Up of
`H.R. 1249, The America Invents Act
`(Apr. 14, 2011) .....................................................
`Brannon, Cong. Rsch. Serv., The Vacancies
`Act: A Legal Overview (rev. Aug. 1, 2022) .......
`Rosenberg, Cong. Rsch. Serv.,
`The New Vacancies Act: Congress Acts
`To Protect the Senate’s Confirmation
`Prerogative (Nov. 2, 1998) ...............................
`
`19
`30
`
`27
`
`17
`
`33
`
`25
`
`

`

`xviii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Letter from Thomas H. Armstrong, U.S.
`Gov’t Accountability Off., to President
`Trump (Mar. 6, 2018) .........................................
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`B. Bauer & J. Goldsmith, After Trump:
`Reconstructing the Presidency (2020) ............
`Kass, VLSI Can’t Dodge Intel-Led IPR After
`OpenSky Sanctions, Law360 (Feb. 16,
`2023), https://www.law360.com/articles/
`1577206/vlsi-can-t-dodge-intel-led-ipr-
`after-opensky-sanctions ....................................
`Kinane, Control Without Confirmation:
`The Politics of Vacancies in
`Presidential Appointments,
`115 Am. Pol. Sci. R. 599 (2021) .........................
`Konnath, USPTO Deputy Director Laura
`Peter Resigns, Following Iancu, Law360
`(Jan. 20, 2021), https://www.law360.com/
`articles/1347011/uspto-deputy-director-
`laura-peter-resigns-following-iancu ................
`Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of
`the America Invents Act: Part II of II,
`21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 539 (2012) ..............................
`Mendelson, L.M.-M. v. Cuccinelli and the
`Illegality of Delegating Around Vacant
`Senate-Confirmed Offices, Yale J. on Reg.
`Notice & Comment (Mar. 5, 2020) ...................
`
`28
`
`27
`
`17
`
`29
`
`30
`
`19
`
`25
`
`

`

`xix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Mendelson, Arthrex on Remand:
`Commissioner of Patents Drew Hirshfeld
`and the Problem of Shadow Acting
`Officials, Patently-O (Mar. 24, 2022),
`https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/03/
`commissioner-hirshfeld-officials.html .............
`O’Connell, Actings, 120 Colum. L.
`Rev. 613 (2020) ...................................................
`Quinn, Vidal’s Solution to OpenSky Abuse
`Encourages PTAB Extortion, IP
`Watchdog (Oct. 5, 2022), https://
`ipwatchdog.com/2022/10/05/vidals-
`solution-opensky-abuse-encourages-
`ptab-extortion/id=151882/ ................................
`Rainey, Loophole Lets DOL Install Wage
`Chief While Nomination Is Pending,
`Bloomberg Law, Aug. 2, 2022 ..........................
`Resh et al., Who Isn’t Running Ameircan
`Government: Appointee Vacancies in U.S.
`Executive Branch Agencies, 41 J. Pub.
`Pol’y 19 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1017/
`S0143814X20000215 ...........................................
`Wright & Miller, Federal Practice &
`Procedure (3d ed. 2017) .....................................
`
`33
`
`27
`
`17
`
`28
`
`27
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`NO. 23-____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC. AND LEIDOS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.,
`APPLE INC., BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC, AND
`KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COM-
`MERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`
`
`
`
`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
`————
`VirnetX Inc. respectfully petitions for a writ of certio-
`rari to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit’s judgments in three related cases, Fed. Cir. Nos.
`20-2271, 20-2272, and 21-1672. See this Court’s Rule 12.4.
`Leidos, Inc. petitions as to Fed. Cir. No. 21-1672.
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The court of appeals’ opinions in Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2271
`and 20-2272 are unpublished but available at 2023 WL
`2708975 and 778 F. App’x 897 (prior appeals), and in the
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`Petition Appendix (“App.”) at 1a-26a and 30a-54a, respec-
`tively. The order denying rehearing (App.280a-282a) is
`unreported. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final
`written decisions (App.58a-85a, 143a-173a), and Commis-
`sioner for Patents’ order denying review (App.55a-57a),
`are unreported.
`The court of appeals’ opinions relating to Fed. Cir. No.
`21-1672 are unpublished but available at 2023 WL 2770074
`and 792 F. App’x 796 (prior appeal), and reproduced at
`App.27a-29a and App.243a-275a, respectively. The order
`denying rehearing (App.285a-286a) is unreported. The
`district court’s judgment (App.278a-279a) is unreported.
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`In Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2271 and 20-2272, the Federal Cir-
`cuit entered judgment on March 30, 2023. App.1a-26a.
`Rehearing was denied June 22, 2023. App.280a-282a. In
`Fed. Cir. No. 21-1672, the Federal Circuit entered judg-
`ment on March 31, 2023. App.27a-29a. Rehearing was de-
`nied June 27, 2023. App.285a-286a. This Court has juris-
`diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND
`REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Relevant provisions of the Appointments Clause, U.S.
`Const. art. II, § 2; Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998,
`5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d; Patent Act (as amended by the
`America Invents Act), 35 U.S.C. §§ 3, 6, 311, 314-315; the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Agency Organization
`Order 45-1 (Nov. 7, 2016); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 are re-
`produced at App.287a-313a.
`INTRODUCTION
`This petition presents important issues under two sem-
`inal statutes: the America Invents Act (“AIA”), which gov-
`erns administrative review of previously issued patents,
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”), which
`governs who may temporarily perform the functions and
`duties of vacant offices requiring presidential appointment
`and Senate confirmation.
`The Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the AIA de-
`stroys an important limit on inter partes review (“IPR”).
`To limit the impact of IPR proceedings on Article III liti-
`gation, Congress required patent-infringement defend-
`ants to seek IPR within a year of being sued. But the Pa-
`tent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the Federal Cir-
`cuit have gutted that time limit. In their view, infringe-
`ment defendants can pursue IPR at any time if they re-
`quest to join already-instituted IPR proceedings. That
`construction defies statutory text, which allows joinder
`only of parties with “properly file[d]”—e.g., timely—IPR
`petitions. And it encourages stalking-horse IPRs that
`conveniently give time-barred patent defendants, whose
`invalidity defenses failed in court, a belated chance to re-
`litigate invalidity in another forum. The result is precisely
`the protracted litigation over patent validity the AIA was
`designed to avoid.
`The Federal Circuit also rendered the FVRA a dead
`letter. The FVRA safeguards the Senate’s role in appoint-
`ments, and the President’s accountability, by specifying
`the “exclusive” mechanisms for designating acting offi-
`cers. 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345, 3347. But the Federal Circuit held
`that agencies may disregard those exclusive mecha-
`nisms—and substitute their own succession plans—so
`long as the functions and duties at issue are “delegable.