Ethicon has filed its expected petition for writ of certiorari challenging the USPTO’s delegation of IPR Institution Decisions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. I wrote about the case earlier:
- Crouch, What Powers Can the Director Delegate to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board?
- Crouch, Due Process and Separating Powers within an Agency.
- Crouch, End of the Road for Ethicon’s Anti-Delegation Argument?
The newly filed petition argues pure statutory interpretation:
Whether the [AIA] permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of the Director to make inter partes review institution decisions.
The setup: The statute requires “The Director” to “determine whether to institute.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). Under the statute, the PTAB picks up its role after institution in order to “conduct each inter partes review instituted under this chapter,” § 316(c). Rather than making the determinations herself, the PTO issued a rule that the PTAB makes the institution decisions “on behalf of the Director.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
Although the statute does not expressly prevent the Director from delegating her authority, Ethicon argues that the statute should be interpreted in light of the “longstanding policy of separation-of-functions whereby adjudicatory officers inside an agency (such as administrative law judges or, here, administrative patent judges) are insulated from discretionary executive functions.” Of course, the Director does not have to personally do all the work – The idea here though is that it is impermissible to delegate policy issues to the administrative patent judges. And, the AIA is clear that the institution decision is at least partially based upon policy and institutional competency determinations.
Read the Petition: Ethicon Petition for Certiorari