Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`Appeal No. 2015-1342
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM,
`Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00219 & IPR2013-00327.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF FOR INTERVENOR – DIRECTOR OF
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATHAN K. KELLEY
`Solicitor
`
`
`Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER
`FRANCES M. LYNCH
`Office of the Solicitor – Mail Stop 8
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`571-272-9035
`
`Attorneys for the Director of the
`United States Patent and
`Trademark Office
`
`
`
`June 25, 2015
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.1
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a):
`
`Relevant Statutory Provisions
`
`
`(a) In General.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is
`not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an
`inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation,
`fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the
`Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the
`review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) & (c):
`
`(b) Patent Owner’s Action.—An inter partes review may not be instituted
`if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the
`date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner
`is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time
`limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for
`joinder under subsection (c).
`
`(c) Joinder.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director,
`in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after
`receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`
`
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.2
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 3
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
`
`Statutory And Regulatory Background ................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Inter Partes Review Procedures Under The AIA ........................ 4
`
`USPTO Rules For Inter Partes Review ...................................... 5
`
`Procedural History ................................................................................. 6
`
`
`1.
`The Board’s Decisions To Institute And Join The Inter
`Partes Reviews ............................................................................ 6
`
`
`2.
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision ........................................... 7
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................................. 8
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Standard Of Review .............................................................................. 9
`
`This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review The USPTO’s
`Decisions To Institute IPR2013-00327 And To Join It With
`Sony’s Other IPR .................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Court’s Precedent Forecloses Yissum’s Challenge .......... 10
`
`That Precedent Comports With The AIA Statutory
`Scheme ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.3
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`3. Mandamus Relief Is Not Available .......................................... 15
`
`If This Court Has Jurisdiction, Yissum Waived Any Challenge
`To The Board’s Institution And Joinder Decisions ............................ 16
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`If This Court Reaches The Merits, The Board Did Not Abuse
`Its Discretion In Instituting IPR2013-00327 And Joining The
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings ......................................................... 17
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.4
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`Case IPR2013-00282 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 15) ............................... 18
`
`
`Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .............................. 17, 20
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00485 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2014) (Paper 18) ............................. 23
`
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd.,
`Case IPR2012-00022 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) (Paper 166) ............................. 18
`
`
`Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) .................................................................. 9
`
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .................................................................................. 9, 19
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., L.L.C., In re, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......... passim
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, In re, 749 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......... 15
`
`GEA Process Eng’g v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1536, -1537, -1538, -1539, -1540 (ECF 21)
`(Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) (non-precedential) ...................................... 1, 10, 12
`
`
`GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1349, -1350, -1352, -1353,
`2015 WL 3692319 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ......................................... passim
`
`
`Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) ............................................................. 15
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00695 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) (Paper 18) ............................. 23
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00109 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 15) .............................. 18
`
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., In re, 749 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................... 15
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.5
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases (continued):
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............. 19
`
`R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Harris, 721 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00950 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2014) (Paper 12) .............................. 23
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Va. Innovation Scis., Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00557 (PTAB June 13, 2014) (Paper 10) .............................. 18
`
`
`Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01485 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 13) ............................. 20
`
`
`St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp.,
`749 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 11
`
`
`Sullivan, In re, 362 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................... 9
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) (Paper 28) ............ 18, 19, 20, 21
`
`
`United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33 (1952) .................... 16, 17
`
`Watts, In re, 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 16
`
`Statutes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) .................................................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2072(a) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2074(a) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) .................................................................................... 1, 12, 13
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.6
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes (continued):
`
`35 U.S.C. § 143 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ..................................................................................... 4, 5, 18, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ..................................................................................... 5, 6, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 ........................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 328 ............................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 329 ............................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 4, 5, 8, 11, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rules and Regulations:
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R., part 42 .................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4 .................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ......................................................................................... 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................ 6
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.7
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 8 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rules and Regulations (continued):
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.120-42.123 ................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................... 6
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 .......................................................................................... 21, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S 1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ................................................ 21
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) ............................................................................... 4
`
`Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act:
`Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 539 (2012) ....................................................... 4
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 advisory committee’s note (1966) ........................................ 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) advisory committee’s note (1937) .................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.8
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 9 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`The Director is not aware of any appeal in connection with this case that has
`
`
`
`previously been before this Court, or that is currently pending in any other court.
`
`Other than the judicial proceedings identified in Yissum’s brief, the Director
`
`is not aware of any judicial proceedings that may affect, or be affected by, a
`
`decision in this matter. This appeal and appeal no. 2015-1343 are companion
`
`cases. The Director is filing substantively identical briefs in both cases, except
`
`when addressing minor wording differences in the Board’s joinder decisions in the
`
`two underlying IPR proceedings.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.9
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 10 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This appeal arises from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. The Board
`
`entered its final written decision on September 22, 2014, and, on November 6,
`
`2014, entered its decision denying the request for rehearing of that decision filed
`
`by Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of
`
`Jerusalem (“Yissum”). Yissum filed a notice of appeal on January 7, 2015, within
`
`the time limit specified by 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1). As explained in Section V.B of
`
`this brief, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the USPTO’s decision to institute
`
`IPR2013-00327, because that decision is “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(d); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., L.L.C., 778 F.3d 1271, 1276-77
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`This Court likewise lacks jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319 to
`
`review the USPTO’s decision under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join that IPR with
`
`IPR2013-00219. See GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1349, -1350, -1352, -
`
`1353, 2015 WL 3692319, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (holding that a final
`
`written decision with respect to patentability is “the only appealable decision
`
`within the statutory regime” under 35 U.S.C. §§ 328-29, which are substantively
`
`identical to §§ 318-19); GEA Process Eng’g v. Steuben Foods, Inc., Nos. 2015-
`
`1536, -1537, -1538, -1539, -1540, slip op. at 4 (ECF 21) (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015)
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.10
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 11 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`(non-precedential) (stating that the GTNX “analysis is the same” in the IPR
`
`context). This Court otherwise has appellate jurisdiction over Yissum’s appeal of
`
`the Board’s final written decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`The USPTO intervened in this appeal for a limited purpose: to address
`
`Yissum’s challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) to the Board’s decision to institute
`
`IPR2013-00327. Sony filed its petition in IPR2013-00327 more than one year
`
`after it had been sued for allegedly infringing the challenged patent. Ordinarily,
`
`such a petition would be barred by § 315(b), but the USPTO determined that the
`
`one-year time limitation in § 315(b) did not bar institution of that IPR because
`
`Sony sought to join IPR2013-00219, which was filed within the one-year time
`
`limitation. Thus, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), “[t]he time limitation set forth in [the
`
`first sentence of § 315(b)] shall not apply.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Sony is also the
`
`petitioner in that earlier, timely-filed IPR. The USPTO therefore addresses two
`
`issues in connection with Yissum’s appeal:
`
`1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the USPTO’s decision
`
`to institute the IPR.
`
`2.
`
`If the Court has jurisdiction, whether the Board abused its discretion
`
`in instituting the IPR and joining it with IPR2013-00219 the day after IPR2013-
`
`00219 was instituted, where both IPRs were sought by the same party.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.11
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 12 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Introduction
`
`Yissum owns U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 (“the ’284 patent”). On March 29,
`
`A.
`
`
`
`2012, Yissum sued Sony Corporation (“Sony”) for allegedly infringing the ’284
`
`patent. On March 29, 2013, Sony filed a first petition with the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute an IPR of the ’284 patent. A200-63.1
`
`The proceedings associated with that petition were designated as IPR2013-00219.
`
`Before the USPTO made a determination whether to institute that IPR, Sony filed a
`
`second petition to institute an IPR of the ’284 patent on July 3, 2013, which was
`
`corrected on July 10, 2013. A2335-94; A2424-88. The proceedings associated
`
`with that petition were designated as IPR2013-00327. Also on July 3, 2013, Sony
`
`filed a motion for joinder of IPR2013-00327 with IPR2013-00219. A2401-09.
`
`The USPTO granted both petitions for IPR, and it granted Sony’s motion to join
`
`the two IPR proceedings. A357-92; A2557-69; A2570-77.
`
`The Board ultimately issued a final written decision determining that Sony
`
`had established that claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29, and 36-38 of the ’284 patent were
`
`unpatentable. A1-54. On rehearing, the Board declined to alter its decision. A55-
`
`62. Yissum here challenges both the Board’s final written decision and the
`
`Board’s decision to institute IPR2013-00327. The Director of the USPTO
`
`1
`Citations to “A___” refer to the Joint Appendix. Citations to “Br. at __”
`refer to Yissum’s brief.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.12
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 13 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`intervened to defend the Board’s decision to institute that IPR and join it with the
`
`earlier-filed IPR. See 35 U.S.C. § 143.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`Statutory And Regulatory Background
`
`1.
`
`Inter Partes Review Procedures Under The AIA
`
`In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`
`Stat. 284 (2011), Congress substantially expanded the USPTO’s procedures for
`
`reconsidering the patentability of claims in issued patents. The AIA replaced inter
`
`partes reexamination with IPR, an adversarial proceeding before the renamed
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 311.2 The AIA changed the
`
`threshold showing necessary for the USPTO to institute an IPR, made all patents
`
`subject to such review regardless of the date on which they were issued, broadened
`
`the estoppel provisions to which petitioning parties would be subject, imposed
`
`strict timelines for completion of the review, and permitted an appeal to this Court
`
`only from the Board’s final written decision as to patentability. See H.R. Rep. No.
`
`112-98, at 46-47 (2011); Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the
`
`America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 539, 598 (2012). Any person
`
`other than the patent owner may petition to institute an IPR, and the petitioner may
`
`2
`The AIA also created “post-grant review” (“PGR”), see generally 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 321-329, and a special “transitional post-grant review proceeding for review of
`the validity of covered business method patents,” AIA § 18, which is known as
`“CBM review.” These proceedings both permit broader patentability challenges
`than IPR, see 35 U.S.C. § 321(b), but they involve similar procedures.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.13
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 14 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`participate in the proceedings and any ensuing appeal. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 316,
`
`319.
`
`Only the Board’s final written decision as to patentability in an IPR is
`
`subject to judicial review in this Court. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 318(a), 319; GTNX, 2015
`
`WL 3692319, at *2-3. Congress provided that the USPTO’s threshold decision
`
`whether to institute an IPR—that is, the agency’s determination whether a
`
`particular petition for review satisfies the statutory criteria for commencement of a
`
`proceeding – shall be “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“The
`
`determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this
`
`section shall be final and nonappealable.”). Congress also granted the USPTO
`
`discretion to “join as a party to [a previously-instituted] inter partes review any
`
`person who properly files a petition under section 311,” if the USPTO determines
`
`that the petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section
`
`314.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`USPTO Rules For Inter Partes Review
`
`To implement the AIA’s new administrative review schemes, Congress
`
`provided the USPTO with expanded rulemaking authority. See generally 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(a); see also Cuozzo, 778 F.3d at 1282. The AIA authorizes the
`
`USPTO to “prescribe regulations . . . establishing and governing” IPR proceedings,
`
`to specify “the relationship of such review to other proceedings under this title,”
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.14
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 15 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`and to set “a time period for requesting joinder,” among other matters. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 316(a)(4), (a)(12).
`
`Pursuant to those express statutory grants of rulemaking authority, the
`
`USPTO has prescribed regulations governing inter partes, post-grant, and CBM
`
`review proceedings, as well as general rules of practice before the Board. See
`
`generally 37 C.F.R., part 42. Among other matters, those rules delegate to the
`
`Board the Director’s authority to determine whether to institute particular
`
`proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. The rules also
`
`provide that either party may request joinder “no later than one month after the
`
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`1.
`
`The Board’s Decisions To Institute And Join The Inter Partes
`Reviews
`
`On September 23, 2013, the Board instituted IPR2013-00219, granting
`
`Sony’s first petition for IPR to review claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36, and 37 of the
`
`’284 patent. A357-92. On the next day, September 24, 2013, the Board instituted
`
`IPR2013-00327, granting Sony’s second petition for IPR to review claims 4, 7, and
`
`38 of the ’284 patent. A2557-69. The Board also granted Sony’s motion for
`
`joinder of the two IPRs on September 24, 2013. A2570-76.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.15
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 16 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`The Board determined “that adequate reasons exist making joinder
`
`appropriate,” and the second petition involved “only very limited new grounds for
`
`unpatentability.” A2572. It also determined that joinder likely would “have little
`
`or no impact on the trial schedule.” Id. It concluded that the second petition was
`
`not brought for delay, stating that it “may take into account attempts by a petitioner
`
`to delay the resolution of a proceeding through serial filings. Such, however, is not
`
`the case here.” A2573. The Board then addressed and rejected Yissum’s argument
`
`that it would be prejudiced by joinder, noting the significant overlap between the
`
`proceedings. A2573-74. The Board thus “exercise[d] its discretion in granting a
`
`motion for joinder” of the two IPRs. A2572-73.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision
`
`After its decisions to institute and join the IPRs, the Board conducted a full
`
`trial proceeding in accordance with its rules. See generally 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.120-
`
`42.123. At the close of that proceeding, the Board issued its final written decision
`
`on September 22, 2014. A1-54. The Board determined in that decision that Sony
`
`had established that claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29, and 36-38 of the ’284 patent were
`
`unpatentable. A52. On rehearing, the Board declined to alter its decision. A55-
`
`62. Yissum then appealed.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.16
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 17 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Yissum’s challenge under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315 to the Board’s decision to institute IPR2013-00327 and join it with IPR2013-
`
`00219. Indeed, Cuozzo rejected the very argument that Yissum now makes – that
`
`the USPTO could not properly have issued a final written decision concluding that
`
`certain claims were unpatentable because it should not have instituted an IPR on
`
`those claims. See 778 F.3d at 1276-77. Yissum’s half-hearted attempt to
`
`distinguish Cuozzo is unavailing. See Br. at 35. The AIA limits the scope of this
`
`Court’s judicial review of an IPR proceeding to the Board’s final written decision
`
`with respect to patentability. It does so because Congress created IPR for the
`
`USPTO to determine whether claims are patentable, not to permit owners of
`
`unpatentable claims nevertheless to retain those claims in their patents because of a
`
`perceived defect in a decision to institute an IPR. Moreover, this Court should not
`
`address Yissum’s challenge here because Yissum waived it by not presenting its
`
`arguments to the Board in the first instance.
`
`If this Court were to reach the merits of Yissum’s challenge, Yissum would
`
`fare no better. The AIA gives the USPTO discretion as to both whether to institute
`
`an IPR and whether to allow joinder of IPR proceedings once instituted. The
`
`Board did not abuse that discretion in this case, and this Court must defer to the
`
`USPTO’s consistent interpretation of the statute as permitting joinder in Yissum’s
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.17
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 18 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`situation, regardless of the fact that Sony sought with its later petition to join its
`
`own earlier proceeding. The statute permits joinder of “any person,” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), which includes Sony. Moreover, as the Board found, Yissum cannot
`
`credibly claim prejudice in this case. Yissum’s arguments thus lack merit, if this
`
`Court considers them.
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`Regulations issued by the USPTO under a statutory grant of rulemaking
`
`authority are entitled to deference unless based on an unreasonable construction of
`
`the statute, see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.
`
`837 (1984); Cuozzo, 778 F.3d at 1272, and the USPTO’s interpretation of its own
`
`regulations is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the
`
`regulation,” Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). The Board’s actions may not be set aside unless “arbitrary, capricious,
`
`an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in
`
`accordance with law.” In re Sullivan, 362 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 5
`
`U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`
`B.
`
`
`
`This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review The USPTO’s Decisions To
`Institute IPR2013-00327 And To Join It With Sony’s Other IPR
`
`This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the USPTO’s decision to institute
`
`IPR2013-00327 and to join it with IPR2013-00219. Congress specifically
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.18
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 19 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`provided that the USPTO’s decision “whether to institute” such a proceeding “shall
`
`be final and nonappealable,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and it authorized this Court to
`
`review only the Board’s final written decision as to patentability, see 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 319, 318(a). Congress could hardly have expressed more clearly its intent to
`
`foreclose after-the-fact relitigation of the USPTO’s decisions in IPR proceedings
`
`other than those final written decisions. See GTNX, 2015 WL 3692319, at *2-3
`
`(holding that a final written decision with respect to patentability is “the only
`
`appealable decision within the statutory regime” under 35 U.S.C. §§ 328-29, which
`
`are substantively identical to §§ 318-19); GEA Process Eng’g, slip op. at 4 (non-
`
`precedential) (stating that the GTNX “analysis is the same” in the IPR context).
`
`And even if Yissum could properly relitigate that question here, the USPTO did
`
`not abuse its discretion in instituting the second-filed IPR and concluding that the
`
`IPR proceedings could be joined under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)-(c).
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This Court’s Precedent Forecloses Yissum’s Challenge
`
`In its appeal, Yissum challenges the Board’s institution of IPR2013-00327
`
`to consider the challenges Sony raised in its second IPR petition. Although
`
`Yissum couches its challenge as one against the Board’s final written decision,
`
`Yissum makes clear that, in its view, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) entirely “barred the
`
`[US]PTO from evaluating the validity of” the claims challenged only in Sony’s
`
`second petition. Br. at 34.
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.19
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 20 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`This Court’s precedent expressly holds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to
`
`consider such challenges. First, the prohibition on this Court’s jurisdiction to
`
`review USPTO decisions in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) includes the USPTO’s
`
`determination of whether § 315(b) bars the petitioner from filing a petition. See St.
`
`Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., 749 F.3d 1373, 1375-76 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014); see also GTNX, 2015 WL 3692319, at *2-3. Second, Ҥ 314(d)
`
`prohibits review of the decision to institute IPR even after a final decision.”
`
`Cuozzo, 778 F.3d at 1276. That is so, even where the appellant asserts that the
`
`Board lacked the authority to address a particular claim in its final written decision.
`
`See id. (noting that Cuozzo challenged the Board’s authority to address claims 10
`
`and 14 of its patent during the IPR, in addition to claim 17). Yissum’s challenge to
`
`the Board’s decisions here is thus no different from the challenge in Cuozzo,
`
`despite Yissum’s assertion to the contrary. Br. at 35.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`That Precedent Comports With The AIA Statutory Scheme
`
`Congress provided that an inter partes review shall proceed in two distinct
`
`phases. See Cuozzo, 778 F.3d at 1276 (citing St. Jude, 749 F.3d at 1375-76). First,
`
`after reviewing the petition filed by the requesting party and any response
`
`submitted by the patent owner, the Director determines whether to “institute” the
`
`Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit Communications PLC Exh. 1231 p.20
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 21 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`proceeding.3 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Next, if the Director decides to institute an IPR,
`
`the Board conducts that review on the merits. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(c). The result
`
`of this second phase is a “final written decision with respect to the patentability” of
`
`the relevant claims. 35 U.S.C. §§ 318(a), 319, 141(c). Such a final written
`
`decision is “the only appealable decision” in an IPR. GTNX, 2015 WL 3692319, at
`
`*3 (addressing the identical statutory text in the PGR context);