Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Critical Legal Battle over IPR Discretionary Denials

**Introduction**

The legal landscape of patent practice is being reshaped by pivotal cases concerning the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its procedures for Inter Partes Review (IPR). Among these, the case of *Apple v. Vidal* stands out, challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial practices—specifically, the NHK-Fintiv rule—under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This case could have far-reaching implications for how patent disputes are handled and how rules are implemented within the USPTO.

**Background: Discretionary Denials and the NHK-Fintiv Rule**

The IPR process is governed by a key statutory threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which grants the USPTO Director discretion to deny IPR petitions even when the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success. The NHK-Fintiv rule, born from two precedential PTAB decisions, articulated a multi-factor test for exercising this discretion, particularly in cases where there is an advanced parallel district court proceeding.

*Apple v. Vidal* originated when Apple, alongside other tech giants like Google, Cisco, and Intel, filed a lawsuit challenging the NHK-Fintiv rule on the grounds that it was implemented without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking, violating both the APA and the America Invents Act (AIA). While the district court initially dismissed their claims, the Federal Circuit revived the notice-and-comment issue, remanding it for further consideration.

**The Core of the Legal Dispute: Notice-and-Comment Requirements**

At the heart of the *Apple v. Vidal* case is whether the NHK-Fintiv rule constitutes a substantive rule that should have been subject to notice-and-comment procedures under the APA. The appellants argue that the rule affects private interests by restricting access to IPR and has binding effects on PTAB judges, making it more than just a general statement of policy.

The district court, however, classified the NHK-Fintiv rule as a general statement of policy, arguing that it does not alter individual rights or obligations and leaves the PTAB with discretion to apply the factors. This decision is now under scrutiny by the Federal Circuit, where the appellants contend that the rule is outcome-determinative in practice and thus required a formal rulemaking process.

**Amicus Briefs and Broader Implications**

Several amicus briefs have been filed in support of Apple and the other appellants, emphasizing the importance of notice-and-comment procedures in ensuring stable and transparent legal frameworks in patent law. These briefs highlight the potential disruption to innovation and investment if such substantive rules are implemented without proper public scrutiny.

One notable brief from Askeladden LLC, for instance, argues that the USPTO should be held to a higher standard of APA scrutiny, given the significant impact of IPR decisions on patent holders and petitioners alike.

**Pending Appeal and Potential Outcomes**

As the Federal Circuit considers the appeal, the outcome could redefine how the USPTO exercises its discretion in IPR proceedings. If the court rules in favor of Apple, it could invalidate the NHK-Fintiv rule and require the USPTO to undergo a formal rulemaking process, providing stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on any new rules.

Additionally, the ongoing rulemaking by Director Vidal, which seeks to address some of the concerns raised by the NHK-Fintiv rule, could render the case moot. However, the appellants may continue to pursue the case to address any residual harms caused by the initial implementation of the rule without proper procedures.

**Conclusion**

The *Apple v. Vidal* case is a critical legal battle that could have profound implications for the future of patent practice and administrative law. As the Federal Circuit reviews the case, stakeholders in the patent community should closely monitor the developments, as the outcome could reshape the rules governing IPR proceedings and the broader regulatory framework within the USPTO.

For patent practitioners, inventors, and companies navigating the complexities of IPR, understanding the implications of this case is essential for staying ahead in an evolving legal landscape.

Gayatri Gupta