Thursday, August 16, 2018

Power Integrations mandamus: really just the camel’s nose under the tent.

Power Integrations disputed PTAB's determinations as to printed publications, which
led to non-institution of an IPR, and filed a mandamus request. It failed.

The CAFC observed:

This is not to say that mandamus will never lie in
response to action by the agency relating to the noninstitution
of inter partes review. The circumstances
described by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as illustrations
of issues for which an appeal might be justified (e.g.,
constitutional issues, issues involving questions outside
the scope of section 314(d), and actions by the agency
beyond its statutory limits) would be potential candidates
for mandamus review as well. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at
2141–42; SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359
(2018). But this case involves no issues extraneous to the
application of patent law principles of unpatentability
based on printed publications, nor does it involve any
“shenanigans” on the part of the Board that might justify
appellate review or review by mandamus. See id. at 2142;
see also SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359.


Post a Comment

<< Home