Abbott Laboratories v. Cordis Corporation
710 F.3d 1318
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Cordis sued Abbott for patent infringement in the District of New Jersey; PTO instituted inter partes reexaminations of two patents at issue.
- PTO initial actions rejected all challenged claims; Cordis and Abbott submitted competing expert affidavits on obviousness and copying.
- Reexaminations proceeded; the examiner issued further actions and appeals to the Board occurred for the ’844 patent; the ’773 patent reexamination remained pending.
- Cordis sought subpoenas under 35 U.S.C. § 24 in Virginia district court to obtain documents for use in the PTO proceedings; court granted, then Abbott moved to quash.
- PTO denied Cordis’s petitions seeking § 24 authorization for subpoenas in inter partes reexamination; district court quashed the subpoenas; Cordis appealed.
- Court holds that § 24 subpoenas are not available in inter partes reexamination because the PTO does not authorize depositions in that proceeding and § 24 is tied to PTO-regulated deposition proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inter partes reexamination is a contested case under §24 | Cordis argues broadly for a flexible notion of contested case. | Abbott contends §24 requires a traditional, trial-like contested proceeding with discovery. | No; inter partes reexamination is not a contested case under §24. |
| Whether the PTO regulations permit depositions in inter partes reexaminations | Cordis relies on §24 to compel testimony; argues depositions should be allowed. | Abbott and PTO say no depositions are permitted in reexaminations; only Board proceedings allow depositions in other contexts. | PTO regulations do not permit depositions in inter partes reexaminations; §24 subpoenas unavailable. |
| Effect of the 2011 AIA on §24 availability for new proceedings | Cordis urges that new IPR framework implies broader discovery. | Defendant asserts AIA creates deposition-allowing framework for IPR, aligning with §24. | AIA creates deposition allowance in IPR; §24 subpoenas are restricted to depositions authorized by PTO regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan v. Doyle, 513 F.2d 895 (1st Cir. 1975) (limits §24 to PTO-authorized discovery in contest proceedings)
- Frilette v. Kimberlin, 508 F.2d 205 (3d Cir. 1974) (§24 as teeth for PTO authority, not broad discovery)
- Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (due process and PTO procedures in reexaminations)
- Patlex II, 771 F.2d 480 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (due process and administrative framework in PTO proceedings)
- Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1979) (early view of §24 discovery limits conflicting with agency proceedings)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard; balancing test)
- Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365 (1988) (statutory interpretation aided by related schemes)