Versata Development Corp. v. Rea, 959 F. Supp. 2d 912

Versata owned U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 and obtained jury verdicts and a Federal Circuit ruling in an infringement suit against SAP.
After the America Invents Act (AIA) created post‑grant and inter partes review procedures, SAP petitioned the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for post‑grant review of the '350 patent as a "covered business method."
The PTAB instituted post‑grant review and, after proceedings, issued a final written decision invalidating certain claims; Versata filed this suit seeking interlocutory APA review of the PTAB’s threshold decision to institute review.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing (1) the AIA precludes district‑court review of the institution decision and (2) the institution decision is not a ‘‘final agency action’’ subject to APA review.
The district court granted dismissal on both grounds: lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (AIA preclusion) and failure to state a claim because the institution decision is not final and there is an adequate remedy (appeal to the Federal Circuit).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the AIA precludes district‑court judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute post‑grant review	Versata: "final and nonappealable" in §324(e) bars direct appeal to Federal Circuit but does not bar APA review in district court; distinctions between "appeal" and "review" save district‑court jurisdiction	Rea/SAP: §324(e) and AIA’s detailed review scheme show Congressional intent to preclude APA suits in district court; appeal is confined to the Federal Circuit after final PTAB decision	Held: AIA precludes district‑court APA review; dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether the PTAB’s institution decision is a final agency action under 5 U.S.C. §704 (and, if not, whether an adequate alternative remedy exists)	Versata: PTAB’s statutory interpretation and institution decision inflict immediate, reviewable harm; could be reviewed as a pure question of law	Rea/SAP: Institution is an initial, non‑final step; no immediate legal rights flow; adequate remedy exists by appealing the final PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit	Held: Institution is not final agency action; adequate remedy exists (appeal to Federal Circuit); dismissal for failure to state a claim

Pregis Corp. v. Kappos, 700 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (framework for determining whether statute precludes judicial review under APA)
Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (factors for inferring congressional intent to preclude review)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two‑part test for final agency action under the APA)
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232 (1980) (agency complaint as nonfinal action analogous to reexamination institution)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency statutory interpretation)
Callaway Golf Co. v. Kappos, 802 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2011) (district court exercised review of inter partes reexamination denial; distinguished here due to AIA language)
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (adequacy of alternative statutory review procedures under §704)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (principles limiting pre‑final judicial review to avoid premature interference with agencies)