Personal Audio loses at the CAFC

The outcome:


Personal Audio appeals. To the extent that Personal
Audio challenges the Board’s final written decision, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenges,
and we have no jurisdiction to review them on appeal from
the district court’s judgment. The exclusive avenue for review was a direct appeal from the final written decision.
To the extent that Personal Audio challenges the district
court’s determination of the consequences of the affirmed
final written decision for the proper disposition of this case,
Personal Audio conceded that governing precedent required judgment for CBS. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment.



Of note:


Personal Audio does not challenge the IPR scheme or
even a particular provision of that scheme, or regulation
under the scheme, on its face. It alleges injury only from
the particular final written decision of the Board that ruled
claims 31−35 of its ’504 patent unpatentable. Personal Audio presents challenges of two types involving the Board
decision, while invoking four constitutional bases and one
non-constitutional basis. First, Personal Audio presents
various challenges to the lawfulness of the Board’s final
written decision itself. Second, Personal Audio challenges
the district court’s ruling on the consequence of the
affirmed Board decision for this case—namely, that termination of Personal Audio’s assertion of the patent claims in
this still-live patent case is a required result of the affirmed
Board decision, even though the jury rendered a verdict in
Personal Audio’s favor.

We do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges of the
first type, which squarely attack the validity of the Board’s
final written decision. The exclusive vehicle for bringing
such challenges is a direct appeal to this court from the final written decision. As to challenges of the second type,
Personal Audio forfeited any argument that existing precedent allows this panel to do anything but reject them. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment for CBS.