Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee, 021016 FEDFED, 2015-1183
|Opinion Judge:||DYK Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHELLE K. LEE, DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||Robert M. Loeb, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Eric A. Shumsky, Jeremy Peterman; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Menlo Park, CA; Andrew D. Silverman, New York, NY. Melissa N. Patterson, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before Newman, Dyk, and Wallach, Circuit Judges. Newman, Circuit Judge, dissenting.|
|Case Date:||February 10, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:14-cv-00674-JCC-IDD, Judge James C. Cacheris.
Synopsys, Inc. ("Synopsys") brought a suit in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") seeking to invalidate the Patent and Trademark Office's ("PTO") regulation that allows the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") to institute inter partes review on "all or some of the challenged claims" 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. The suit also challenged the PTO's practice of issuing final decisions on fewer than all of the claims raised in a petition. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that "Congress intended to preclude this Court from reviewing inter partes proceedings under the APA" and, alternatively, that the appeal from a final written decision of an inter partes review provides an adequate remedy, thus barring judicial review. Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee, No. 1:14CV674 (JCC/IDD), 2014 WL 5092291, at *9 (E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 2014). Synopsys appeals.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP