April 19, 2021

Volume XI, Number 109

Advertisement

April 16, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

A Real Party-in-Interest Determination is Final and Non-Appealable, Including Denial of Related Motion to Dismiss and Discovery

In CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, Nos. 2020-1565, 2020-1567 (Mar. 16, 2021), CyWee challenged the Board’s conclusion that Google identified all real parties-in-interest under the obligations of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).

The holding in an earlier Federal Circuit case was determinative—ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, 958 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In ESIP, the Federal Circuit concluded that “the Board’s § 312(a)(2) real-party-in-interest determination is final and non-appealable” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) because it “raises an ordinary dispute about the application of an institution-related statute.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1373–74 (2020); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2139 (2016). This same principle applied in CyWee.

CyWee attempted to distinguish ESIP by arguing that there were two issues beyond the Board’s decision on institution that were impacted by the Board’s finding that Google’s real party-in-interest designation was appropriate. First, the Board denied CyWee’s post-institution motion to dismiss for failure to properly name all real parties-in-interest in the petition. Second, the Board also denied CyWee’s motion seeking additional discovery into other unnamed entities it believed were real parties-in-interest to the petition. CyWee presented both the issues of dismissal and discovery as distinct from institution, and thus appealable. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

On the first issue, the Federal Circuit found that CyWee’s motion to dismiss “amounted to nothing more than a request for the Board to reconsider its institution decision,” which is “final and non-appealable” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

On the second issue, the Federal Circuit found that, like the motion to dismiss, CyWee’s motion for additional discovery was inextricably bound to the decision to institute because the only discovery CyWee sought “relates solely to whether Google met its obligations under § 312(a)(2).” And CyWee provided no explanation for why the discovery denial should be reviewable if the underlying § 312(a)(2) issue is not reviewable. The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that the “Board’s discovery ruling is a subcomponent of its broader challenge to the Board’s § 312(a)(2) determination and is therefore similarly unreviewable.”

Advertisement
© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 97
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Kara Specht Patent Litigation Attorney Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Law Firm Atlanta GA
Associate

Kara Specht focuses on patent litigation before district courts and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Her practice covers a wide range of electronic and electrical technology areas related to computers, consumer electronics, and computer-implemented business methods.

Kara has experience in all aspects of patent litigation before district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. Before district court and the ITC, Kara has experience from both a plaintiff and defendant perspective, ranging from pre-filing planning and strategy,...

404 653 6481
Brooke Wilner Patent Attorney Finnegan
Associate

Brooke Wilner, a registered patent attorney, enjoys a varied trial and appellate litigation practice. She practices before U.S. district courts, state courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

Brooke represents both patent owners and accused infringers across a broad range of mechanical and electrical technologies, including clients in the aerospace, automotive, consumer products, software, and hardware industries. She has...

404-653-6454
Amanda Murphy IP Lawyer Finnegan
Partner

Amanda Murphy, Ph.D., focuses her practice on strategic client counseling, portfolio management, and patent prosecution for a range of clients, including small startup companies, research foundations, and large biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

Amanda provides patentability opinions, prepares new patent applications, prosecutes U.S. and foreign applications, and represents appellants before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She has experience in prosecuting inter partes ...

202 408 4114
Advertisement
Advertisement