IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020)

On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on remand a partially-instituted IPR decision with directions to fully institute the IPR on all petitioned grounds. Instead of fully instituting the IPR, the PTAB declined to institute the IPR at all. Petitioner appealed, and the Federal Circuit dismissed. Continue reading “IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2”

The PTAB and the Constitution

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019)

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of constitutional challenges to these type of proceedings.  This latest challenge concerned the very formation of the PTAB itself.

Continue reading “The PTAB and the Constitution”

IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. August 29, 2019)

Photo of John P. Isacson
John Isacson

On motion, the Federal Circuit dismissed the second appeals in three IPRs pertaining to oral films used for the delivery of active components.  The PTAB initially instituted the three IPRs, but not on all the grounds contained in the petitions.  In total, there were seventeen grounds in the petitions, and the PTAB instituted on only three.

Continue reading “IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable”