38 F. Supp. 3d 162
D. Mass.2014Background
- Biogen Idee (via Fiers) owns application '843 (filed 1994; divisional to earlier filings); JFCR (via Sugano) owns application '757 (filed 1995). Both claim human fibroblast interferon (hFIF).
- PTO declared an interference between '843 and '757 on July 16, 2013 (Interference No. 105,939). The PTAB found interference-estoppel based on an earlier 1983 interference (No. 101,096) and finally refused the '843 claims on October 3, 2013.
- Biogen Idee sued in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 146 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), seeking review of the PTAB decision.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff asked, if the court lacked jurisdiction, that the case be transferred to the Federal Circuit.
- The legal dispute centers on whether district-court review under pre-AIA § 146 remains available for interferences declared after Sept. 16, 2012, given the AIA, its effective-date provisions, and the AIA Technical Corrections Act (TCA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has subject-matter jurisdiction to review PTAB interference decisions declared after Sept. 16, 2012 | AIA § 3(n)(1) preserves pre-AIA appeals (including § 146) for pre-AIA patents; therefore district-court review remains available | AIA and TCA limited pre-AIA carryover; Congress reinstated pre-AIA § 141 (Federal Circuit) for post‑effective interferences via the TCA but did not preserve § 146 — appeals lie only to the Federal Circuit | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; appeals of interferences declared after Sept. 15, 2012 are reviewable only in the Federal Circuit per the TCA and AIA construction |
| Whether the action should be dismissed or transferred if court lacks jurisdiction | Transfer to Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is warranted in interest of justice | N/A (defendants sought dismissal) | Court transfers the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under § 1631 rather than dismissing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (statutory grant of jurisdiction required)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. S. Acres Dev. Co., 434 U.S. 236 (federal court power is limited to statutory grants)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle)
- Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 481 U.S. 454 (legislative history cannot override plain statutory language)
- In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien, 747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (if district court lacks jurisdiction, transfer under § 1631 is appropriate)
- Fafel v. DiPaola, 399 F.3d 403 (1st Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 1995) (same)
- Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(b)(1) standard permitting consideration of evidence outside complaint)