PublishedOctober 25, 2021

Arthrex, Mobility Workx, and Director Review at Institution

There’s been a fair amount of discussion regarding Judge Newman’s dissent in last week’s Mobility Workx case.  In Mobility Workx, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit rejected a variety of constitutional challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Judges Dyk and Schall, in the majority, found no merit in the due process arguments relating to PTAB fees raised by Mobility Workx (a topic I hope to discuss in more detail at a later date).  But they also rejected Mobility Workx’s structural arguments regarding the Appointments Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act with respect to the institution decision.

Judge Newman, in dissent, gave credence to those arguments.  In particular, she argues that the Director’s delegation of the institution decision to APJs raises a similar Appointments Clause issue to that addressed in Arthrex.  But she does so based on flawed assumptions—in particular, the assumption that, post-Arthrex, the Director cannot review institution decisions by themself.

That assumption is incorrect.

The Supreme Court laid out its remedy clearly in Arthrex, saying “we hold that 35 U.S.C. §6(c) is unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own.”  (Emphasis added).  In other words, the Director can ignore the 3 member panel requirement and act on his or her own when reviewing decisions of the PTAB.

And there is already a procedure for requesting review of an institution decision—the request for rehearing.  37 C.F.R. § 42.71 permits those dissatisfied with a decision on institution to petition for rehearing of that decision.  And § 42.71 also states that a panel will conduct that rehearing.  Since, as the Supreme Court made clear, the Director can act alone when reviewing a decision of the PTAB, there is no Appointments Clause problem—a principal officer of the United States retains the ability to review institution decisions.

While it’s likely that dissatisfied parties will try to make this argument to appeal institution decisions in the future, the Federal Circuit should have no problem rejecting them.

Josh Landau

Patent Counsel, CCIA

Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues.  Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.

Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues.  Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan.  Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.

Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.

More Posts

Input on the United States Government National Standards Strategy for CET (Part 1)

This post first appeared on SEP Essentials. The Department of Commerce of the United States government in conjunction with the U.S. National Institute of Standard and Technology (“NIST”) has a...

What Europe Is Doing Right On SEPs

The European Union (EU) is diving into one of patent policy’s most controversial questions: how should patents on technologies which are essential for wireless connectivity be licensed? As the range...

Follow the Founders and Insist on Review of Unjust Monopolies Created by Invalid Patents

This post draws from and summarizes a forthcoming law review article from the author. The full article is available on SSRN. A patent is a monopoly, for a certain time, on the sale of something fo...

Subscribe to Patent Progress

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.