Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Citation | 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1387,781 F.3d 1372 |
Decision Date | 01 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2014–1724.,2014–1724. |
Parties | INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Chase Bank USA, National Association, Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC, Paymentech LLC, Defendants–Appellants. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Eric F. Citron, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Thomas Richard Burns, Jr., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP, Washington, DC; Marc Belloli, Ian Neville Feinberg, Elizabeth Day, Nickolas Bohl, Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP, Menlo Park, CA.Mark A. Lemley, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Clement Roberts; Kenneth R. Adamo, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Brent P. Ray, Eugene Goryunov, Chicago, IL; John C. O'Quinn, William H. Burgess, Washington, DC.
James Quarles, III, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Askeladden, L.L.C. Also represented by Robert Anthony Arcamona, Gregory H. Lantier ; Richard Wells O'neill, Boston, MA.
Before O'MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge O'MALLEY.
Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”) brought suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association; Chase Bank USA, National Association; Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC; and Paymentech LLC (collectively, “JPMC”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of five patents. JPMC moved to stay the action on grounds that it intended to file petitions seeking covered business method reviews (“CBMR”) with respect to some of the patents in suit. After two CBMR petitions were filed by JPMC, but before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) acted on them, the district court denied JPMC's motion to stay. JPMC then sought interlocutory review of that ruling. Because we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of JPMC's motion to stay, we dismiss.
IV alleged infringement of five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,715,084 (“the '084 patent”) ; 6,314,409 (“the '409 patent”) ; 5,745,574 (“the ' 574 patent”) ; 6,826,694 (“the '694 patent”) ; and 7,634,666 (“the '666 patent”).1 Approximately one year later, on June 27, 2014, JPMC moved to stay the case pending the result of, inter alia, four CBMR petitions JPMC said it was planning to file.2 Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 166 . Shortly after filing the motion to stay, JPMC did, in fact, file two CBMR petitions for the '409 and ' 574 patents —on July 11 and 18, respectively. It has never filed the other two promised petitions.
On August 11, 2014, the district court denied JPMC's motion to stay. The court applied the four-factor test set forth in § 18(b)(1) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub.L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011), expressly stating that it was assuming without deciding that § 18(b)(1) governed its consideration of the motion. The district court first noted that, because there are multiple patents and claims in suit, it would be inappropriate to stay the entire litigation while waiting to see if the PTAB would choose to initiate review of only two of the patents at issue. The district court also concluded that it expected the litigation to be resolved in less than a year. Since the PTAB is authorized to take twelve months to complete a CBMR, the PTAB could extend that time by another six months, and those time periods would not begin to run until a CBMR petition was actually granted, the court concluded that the litigation would likely be resolved more quickly than any extended CBM review. Ultimately, the district court concluded that JPMC's argument that the PTAB's resolutions of the CBMR petitions would reduce the court's workload was largely speculative, and was offset by IV's right to a speedy trial.
JPMC filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a motion to stay relating to CBMR proceedings under § 18 of the AIA.3 As of the date of oral arguments, the PTAB had not acted on the CBMR petitions at issue.4
Consistent with the final judgment rule, this court normally only has jurisdiction to review “a final decision of the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated the importance of the final judgment rule. E.g., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981) () ; United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (). Exceptions to the final judgment rule, whether statutory or arising from common law, are to be narrowly construed. See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867–68, 114 S.Ct. 1992, 128 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994) ; Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) ( ).
The parties agree that decisions on motions to stay ordinarily are not immediately appealable under the final judgment rule. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 277–78, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) ( ). And, more specifically, the parties agree that rulings on motions to stay premised on the institution of inter partes review proceedings are not appealable under this rule. See Appellant's Br. 1–2. There is no doubt, accordingly, that the AIA's authorization for immediate appellate review of stay rulings relating to CBMR proceedings is a statutory grant of jurisdiction to this court which must be construed narrowly. See Digital Equip., 511 U.S. at 867–68, 114 S.Ct. 1992.
Section 18 of the AIA states in relevant part:
Our first step in construing the statute is to look to the language of the AIA. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) (). The AIA differentiates between a petition for a CBMR proceeding (which a party files) and the act of instituting such a proceeding (which the Director is authorized to do). For instance, AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) refers to when a person may file a “petition for a [CBMR] proceeding,” which suggests that a petition is a request for a CBMR proceeding, not that the petition itself is part of the proceeding. Section 18(a)(3)(B) uses similar language—referring to “any petition for a [CBMR] proceeding”—again suggesting that the petition is a request that a proceeding be instituted, not that the petition itself institutes a proceeding. Comparing this language with that in § 18(a)(1)(E), which states that “[t]he Director may institute a [CBMR] proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent,” is telling. Because the Director decides whether to “institute,” or begin, a CBMR proceeding, and necessarily bases that decision on the strength of the petition, the petition itself cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp.
...imposed statutory limitations on the PTO's authority to institute IPRs.As we explained in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015), when assessing whether we may exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from institution decisions regarding covered bu......
-
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.
...cheaper, faster administrative alternative for reviewing business method patents.” Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2015) (Hughes, J. dissenting). If this court may vacate the Board's invalidity decision on the basis of a threshold decision......
-
Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Oracle Corp., 2015-1242
...under the requirements of the statute. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (emphasis added). As we explained in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015), in the context of assessing when we may exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from institution decisions regard......
-
Murata Mach. USA, Murata Mach., Ltd. v. Daifuku Co.
...have interlocutory jurisdiction over a district court's decision to stay or not stay a case. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 781 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that “decisions on motions to stay ordinarily are not immediately appealable under the fin......
-
IPR Estoppel Might Not Be So Scary
...Inc., v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, Paper 8, September 16, 2015. 6 Id. at 8. 7 Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 8 Apotex Inc., at 8. 9 Id., at 8-9 (internal quotes omitted) (citing 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,689 (Aug. 14, 2012) (stating "......
-
Behind the Scenes of the Trademark Modernization Act: An Interview with Stephen Lee
...See, e.g. , Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 621 F. App’x 995, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated , 780 F.3d 1134......
-
The Law of District Court Stays for USPTO Proceedings
...See, e.g. , Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 621 F. App’x 995, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated , 780 F.3d 1134......
-
Chapter §22.02 Inter Partes Review
...decision to stay or not stay a case." Murata Mach., 830 F.3d at 1361 (citing Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that "decisions on motions to stay ordinarily are not immediately appealable under the final judgment rule" (ci......