In denying a petition for rehearing, the Federal Circuit determined in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. that under Cuozzo, the court lacks authority to review a PTAB decision that reconsidered an IPR institution decision, and then terminated the IPR because the petition failed to identify the real party in interest.
As we have previously discussed, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo determined that under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), a PTAB decision on institution of an IPR is nonappealable, although such a decision might be appealable if it implicated constitutional questions or raised issues of the agency acting outside its statutory limits.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Reconsideration of Institution Decision Unreviewable on Appeal
On May 20, 2016, the 
Update: The Supreme Court issued a 
As the patent community anxiously awaits the PTAB’s decision concerning whether the Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) should be sanctioned for filing an IPR petition against a Celgene patent¹, the PTAB recently denied institution of two IPR petitions² the CFAD filed concerning two Acorda patents that cover Ampyra, a billion-dollar drug for treating multiple sclerosis. The CFAD is a wholly owned subsidiary of a hedge fund managed by Kyle Bass and, since February 2015, Bass and the CFAD have filed twenty nine IPR petitions against more than twenty patents different patents belonging to at least fifteen different companies. 
In several recent decisions, the PTAB has clarified the standing required to file petitions seeking Covered Business Method review. Under the AIA, standing to seek Covered Business Method review is limited to those charged with infringement and their “privies.” “Privies,” however, do not encompass merely any party with whom the petitioner is in “privity.” “Privies” is effectively synonymous with “customers”– and, not merely any customers, but customers who the petitioner is legally obligated to indemnify for their alleged infringement. 
Whether a non-identified party is a real party-in-interest to a proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at 895).