The Supreme Court of the United States held that the application of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)'s one-year time bar by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. §314(d). The Court referred to its reasoning from Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ___ (2016), which suggested that §314(d) could preclude review in cases: (1) where a litigant challenges the Director’s reasonable likelihood of success determination under §314(a), or (2) where

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated this decision to institute an inter partes review as precedential. In this case, the Board declined to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) because there was "new, noncumulative prior art in asserted in the Petition." The Board also declined to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) because "[the] Patent Owner seems to acknowledge that the Board proceeding would not be directly dupl

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on March 24, 2020 designated as precedential this decision denying institution of the inter partes review and explained that the Board utilizes a two-part framework in determining whether or not to exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). 35 U.S.C. 325(d) states "[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding..., the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially t