CAFC in Warsaw
Based on two petitions filed by NuVasive, Inc.
(“NuVasive”), the United States Patent and Trademark
Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“PTAB”) instituted inter partes reviews of claims 1–30 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,251,997 (“the ’997 patent”). In separate
Final Written Decisions, the PTAB found claims 1–8 and
17–23 obvious and therefore invalid. See NuVasive, Inc.
v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. (NuVasive I), No. IPR2013-
00208, 2014 WL 3422010 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2014) (addressing
claims 1–8); NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic,
Inc. (NuVasive II), No. IPR2013-00206, 2014 WL
3422008 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2014) (addressing claims 9–
Logical and rational?
Nevertheless, as we stated above, the PTAB maintains
the independent “obligation . . . to make the necessary
findings and to provide an administrative record
showing the evidence on which the findings are based,
accompanied by the agency’s reasoning in reaching its
conclusions.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342 (emphasis added)
(citations omitted). As for its reasoning, the PTAB “must
articulate ‘logical and rational’ reasons for [its] decisions.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We may affirm
the PTAB’s finding “if we may reasonably discern that it
followed a proper path, even if that path is less than
perfectly clear.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health,
Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).