Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Federal Circuit’s Latest on IPR Proceedings

Introduction: The recent Federal Circuit decision in Platinum Optics v. Viavi Solutions has once again brought attention to the constitutional requirement of standing in federal court cases, particularly in the context of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Despite the statutory right to appeal granted by the America Invents Act (AIA), the decision underscores the limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution on who can pursue such appeals.

Understanding the Case-and-Controversy Requirement: Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “Cases” and “Controversies.” This seemingly straightforward provision is the foundation of the legal doctrine of standing, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant’s actions and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The Supreme Court's decisions in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins have further refined this requirement, emphasizing the need for an injury to be both concrete and real, rather than abstract.

IPR Proceedings and the Right to Appeal: Under 35 U.S.C. § 319, any party dissatisfied with the final written decision of an IPR has the statutory right to appeal to the Federal Circuit. However, this right is subject to the constitutional limits imposed by Article III. As the Platinum Optics decision illustrates, even a statutory right to appeal cannot override the need for a party to establish standing in federal court.

The Platinum Optics Case: Platinum Optics v. Viavi Solutions revolved around a dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369, which covers specific optical filters used in sensor systems. After losing the IPR proceeding, Platinum Optics sought to appeal the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit. Despite the company's prior involvement in infringement litigation concerning the same patent, the Federal Circuit ruled that Platinum Optics lacked the standing necessary to bring the appeal.

Key Takeaways from the Decision:

  1. Dismissal with Prejudice and the Kessler Doctrine: Platinum Optics had previously faced infringement lawsuits regarding the same patent, which were dismissed with prejudice. The Federal Circuit found that these dismissals, under the expanded Kessler doctrine, barred re-accusations of the same products and did not establish standing for an IPR appeal. This aligns with the court's earlier decision in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., which similarly held that past lawsuits dismissed with prejudice do not automatically confer standing for appeals in related patent disputes.

  2. Insufficient Evidence of Future Infringement: The court also considered Platinum Optics' declaration regarding its plans to develop new products. The declaration, which stated that the company was working on new bandpass filters without providing specific details about their potential infringement, was deemed too vague to establish the concrete injury required for standing. The court emphasized the need for specific, detailed information about the new products to demonstrate a credible risk of future infringement.

Practical Implications for IPR Petitioners: The Platinum Optics decision serves as a cautionary tale for IPR petitioners. Even when a statutory right to appeal exists, the constitutional requirement of standing can act as a significant barrier to pursuing an appeal. Petitioners must ensure that they have a concrete and particularized interest in the outcome of the appeal, which may involve demonstrating current or imminent risk of infringement litigation.

Strategic Considerations: Petitioners should consider taking proactive steps to establish standing during the IPR process. This could involve engaging in activities that create a concrete risk of infringement, such as developing or selling products that could potentially infringe the patent in question. Even minimal acts of potential infringement could be sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement, ensuring that the petitioner can pursue an appeal if necessary.

Conclusion: The Platinum Optics decision reinforces the importance of the constitutional standing requirement in federal court appeals, even in the context of statutory rights granted by the AIA. For IPR petitioners, this means carefully evaluating and, if necessary, taking steps to establish standing well before considering an appeal. By understanding and addressing these legal requirements, petitioners can better position themselves to successfully challenge unfavorable PTAB decisions in federal court.

Gayatri Gupta