[20200428]LSB10454_最高法院认为对专利局的某些决定没有司法审查.pdf

CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i No Judicial Review of Certain Patent Office Decisions, Supreme Court Holds April 28, 2020 In 2011, Congress enacted major patent reform in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA, among other things, created inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial procedure during which the U.S. Patent & Trademark Offices (PTOs) Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews the validity of issued patents. In particular, IPR allows any person, other than the patentee, to petition the PTAB for review of a patent. After receiving a petition, the PTAB may institute an IPR if it determines that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” However, 35 U.S.C. 315(b) (the so-called “time-bar”) provides that the PTAB may not institute an IPR if the petition “is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Under 35 U.S.C. 314(d) (the so-called “no-appeal provision”), moreover, the PTABs determination to institute an IPR “under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” In Thryv, Inc. v. C