Federal Circuit Holds that PTAB May Enter Adverse Judgment Against a Patent Owner

Feb 1, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion. He first addressed whether the PTAB’s entry of final judgment was appealable, and concluded that it was. Neither party contended that the statutory appeal-bar provision prohibiting appeal of institution decisions applied. And the majority determined that Arthrex had an affirmative right to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 because the PTAB’s decision amounted to a final adverse judgment that disposed of the IPR. Judge Dyk then turned to the question of whether the PTAB’s entry of an adverse judgment before trial was instituted was proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). The regulation identifies “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (emphasis added) as an action “construed to be a request for adverse judgment.” Judge Dyk found that the language “has no remaining claim in the trial” could be interpreted to mean that the party has no remaining claim “for trial.” In the majority’s view, such an interpretation was proper because it was consistent with the remainder of the PTO’s rules, including other subsections of § 42.73(b), and furthered the purpose of the estoppel provisions. The majority further concluded that Arthrex’s statement that it was not requesting adverse judgment did not change the outcome because application of the rule turns on the PTAB’s characterization of the patent owner’s action, not the patent owner’s own characterization. Judge O’Malley concurred, writing separately to express a strong doubt that the director had authority to promulgate 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) in the first place. Judge O’Malley concurred in the result, however, because Arthrex disclaimed any reliance on a statutory or administrative challenge to the regulation.

Judge Newman dissented. In her view, § 42.73(b)(2)only permits the PTAB to construe the cancellation of claims as a request for adverse judgment after trial has already been instituted. Specifically, Judge Newman disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the statement “no remaining claim in the trial” in § 42.73(b)(2) could properly be interpreted to mean “no remaining claim for trial.”

Pursuant to the panel majority’s decision in this case, “37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the PTAB to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision.” But the majority expressly reserved the issue of whether the PTO had the authority to issue the regulation in the first place, and Judge O’Malley’s concurrence sends strong signals that she does not believe that it did. Accordingly, there appears to be a viable challenge available should a patent owner find itself in the same situation as Arthrex.

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al., No. 2017-1239 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2018)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.