SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu Has Affected Cases in Federal Courts in Addition to Those at the PTAB
Published: June 13, 2018
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) must issue a final written decision addressing each and every patent claim challenged in an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petition if review is granted. In other words, if the PTAB is going to institute a review, it must address all the claims that are being challenged by the petition. In the six weeks or so since the SAS Institute decision, the ruling has had repercussions not only for the PTAB, but also for federal courts.
For example, in Wi-LAN, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, the Southern District of California recently decided to issue a stay in a patent infringement case brought by WiLan, Inc. against LG Electronics, Inc. pending a decision on whether to institute an IPR proceeding against the at-issue patents. While not dispositive, the Court did consider the SAS Insitute ruling in making its decision, reasoning “[w]hile review is not guaranteed … in light of the Supreme Court’s mandate to review all contested claims upon grant of [an IPR] and the complexity of this case, the court finds [the simplification of issues] weighs in favor of a limited stay of proceedings until the [PTAB] issues its decisions on whether to institute IPR.”
Next, in DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., the District of Delaware had to decide whether to lift an already issued stay when some but not all challenged claims had already been ruled on by the PTAB. The Delaware District Court decided not to lift the stay because the circumstances warranting the entry of a stay in the first instance still persisted in light of SAS Institute. Specifically, the Court reasoned that the “parties stipulated to stay the litigation ‘pending resolution by the PTAB of the patentability of all challenged claims in the pending IPR.’” Although the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings with respect to some claims, and issued a final written decision on all remaining claims, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the PTAB must issue a final written decision “with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged,” and “in this context, as in so many others, ‘any’ means ‘every.’” For this reason, the Federal Circuit remanded Ulthera’s appeal to the PTAB for issuance of a final decision regarding the patentability of all claims. Consequently, the PTAB has yet to resolve the patentability of all challenged claims in the pending IPR proceeding, and the terms of the parties’ stipulation have not been satisfied.
Finally, in PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit held that it has jurisdiction to address appeals without first requiring the PTAB address the claims and grounds included in petitions for review but not previously included in final written decisions, i.e. the “non-instituted” claims and grounds. In other words, the Federal Circuit held “that the existence of non-instituted claims and grounds does not deprive [it] of jurisdiction to decide appeals from final written decisions.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that while the PTAB having only partially instituted review is now improper under SAS Institute, the PTAB’s final decisions on the validity of individual claims are nonetheless still final because the PTAB made a patentability determination.
Although there are still numerous issues and questions the PTAB and federal courts need to decide in implementing the SAS Institute ruling, the answers to some of these issues and questions are slowly taking shape. However, there are many more that will require resolution in both the short and long term.