Cert Petitions

Cert Grant on Appealability of Instituting Inter Partes Review

In Dex Media, the Supreme Court will address whether § 314(d) bars appellate review of the determination that a party timely sought inter partes review.

June 25, 2019

By Bryan Lammon

The Supreme Court granted cert yesterday in Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP. The case concerns the appealability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review. The statute in question—35 U.S.C. § 314(d)—says that “[t]he determination . . . whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” But the Federal Circuit held that this provision does not deprive that court of jurisdiction to review the Board’s conclusion that a petition to institute inter partes review was timely. In Dex Media, the Supreme Court will review this interpretation of § 314(d).

Side note: This means that next term will see three cases on appellate jurisdiction and procedure: Dex Media, Holguin-Hernandez v. United States (which will address whether defendants must formally object to the length of their sentence to preserve the issue for appeal), and Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (which will address whether a denial of bankruptcy-stay relief is final and appealable).

Below is a quick introduction to Dex Media and some useful links for reading up on the case.

Simplifying (quite) a bit, inter partes review is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to adjudicate the validity of a patent. Anyone (besides the patent owner) can petition the Board to institute the review process. And certain requirements must be met for inter parties review to be proper. One of those requirements is that the the petitioner must seek review within one year of receiving a complaint alleging infringement of the patent in question.

The statute governing inter partes review also places limits on appeals: 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) says that “[t]he determination . . . whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”

But last year, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., the en banc Federal Circuit held that § 314(d) does not bar appellate review of whether a petition for inter partes review was timely filed. The Federal Circuit then applied that rule in Dex Media (which was captioned Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. in the Federal Circuit) to hear an appeal on the timeliness of a petition for review.

The court went on to hold that a complaint that was dismissed without prejudice started the one-year period for petitioning for inter partes review. And because the petitioner in Dex Media had sought review more than a year after a complaint concerning the patent was dismissed without prejudice, the Federal Circuit held that the petition was untimely.

The Supreme Court granted cert in Dex Media to address the appealability of the Board’s determination that a petition for inter partes review was timely filed. Although Dex Media also sought cert on whether the filing of a complaint that was dismissed with prejudice begins the one-year clock for seeking inter partes review, the Court did not grant cert on that issue.

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

The Continuing Fifth Circuit-Federal Circuit Fight Over Walker Process Appeals
The Fifth and Federal Circuits continue to disagree about where appeals of Walker Process antitrust/patent claims should go. It seems that both will now transfer these appeals to each other, and each might reluctantly accepting the transfer. This jurisdictional hot potato needs to stop.
Anderson, Gugliuzza & Rantanen on Federal Circuit Mandamus
Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza, and Jason Rantanen have a new paper on the Federal Circuit’s use of mandamus, focusing particularly on patent cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
The Federal Circuit and Advisory Mandamus on Improper Venue
The Federal Circuit used advisory mandamus to hold that servers alone were not enough to establish venue in a patent-infringement suit.
The Federal Circuit & Cumulative Finality
The Federal Circuit might have switched camps in the cumulative-finality split. But its lack of explanation leaves any change uncertain.
Paul Gugliuzza on “Arising Under” Jurisdiction in Patent Cases
Paul Gugliuzza tackles arising-under patent jurisdiction, including the Federal Circuit’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction.