In Re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC.

See case details

In re DOMINION DEALER SOLUTIONS, LLC., Petitioner.

Misc. No. 109.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 24, 2014.

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 2014.

749 F.3d 1379

Stеven J. Rocci, Woodcock Washburn LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. With him on the petition were Henrik D. Parker and Jeffrey W. Lesovitz.

Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, for respondent United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the response were Francеs M. Lynch and Meredith H. Schoenfeld, Associate Solicitors.

Craig S. Summers, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, of Irvine, CA, for respondent AutoAlert, Inc. With him on the response were Paul A. Stewart, David G. Jankowski and Cheryl T. Burgess.

Before PROST, O‘MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, petitioned thе Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office to institute inter partes reviews of five patents owned by AutoAlert, Inc. The Director, through her delegee, denied the petitions. Dominion now petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus that would vaсate the non-institution decisions and order the Director to institute an inter partes review for each of the five AutоAlert patents. As we decide today in

St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., 749 F.3d 1373, No. 2014-1183, 2014 WL 1623676 (Fed.Cir. 2014), however, the relevant statutory pro-visions make clear that we may ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍not hear an appeal from the Director‘s decision not to institute an inter partes review. Based on that decision, we deny Dominion‘s petition for mandamus relief.

BACKGROUND

This dispute began in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where AutoAlert sued Dominion, alleging infringement of five patents. The patents claim systems and methods that involve alerting a car dealership when a new lease or sale opportunity seems a good fit for a past customer.

AutoAlert, Inc. v. Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-1661 (C.D.Cal. filed Oct. 1, 2012).

After being served the complaint in the Califоrnia action, Dominion timely petitioned the Director for inter partes reviews of those five patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. The California district court then stayed the case pursuant to section 315(a)(2). The Director, through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as her delegee, dеnied the petition, deciding under section 314(a) & (b) not to institute any of the requested inter partes reviews.¹ The Board explained that none of Dominion‘s petitions showed, as required to launch such a review, “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would рrevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged.” Id. § 314(a).

Dominion filed requests for rehearing, аrguing that unrebutted evidence demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are invalid. The Board denied rehearing. In October 2013, Dominion sued the PTO in the United States District Court for the Eastеrn District of Virginia, invoking that court‘s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1338 and seeking relief from the non-institution decision ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and a mandamus statute applicable to district courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. In November 2013, Dominion filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, challenging the Director‘s non-institution decision directly in this court.

DISCUSSION

“The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.”

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Accordingly, “three conditions must be satisfied before it may issue.”

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). The petitioner must show а “‘clear and indisputable‘” right to relief.

Id. at 381 (quoting

Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403). The petitioner must “lack adequate alternative means to obtain the relief” it seeks.

Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989);

Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380;

Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. And “even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.”

Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381.

In another Order issuеd today, we dismiss an appeal by a patent challenger ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍seeking review of the Director‘s decision not to institute an inter partes review. See

Order Dismissing Appeal, St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., 749 F.3d 1373, No. 2014-1183, 2014 WL 1623676 (Fed.Cir. Apr. 24, 2014). We explain that such a challenger may not appeal the non-institution decision to this court. We conclude that such an appeal is precluded by the statutory provisions addressing inter partes review, including section 314(d)‘s broad declaration that the Director‘s decision “whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable,” and by our jurisdictional statute. See

St. Jude, 749 F.3d at 1376.

Those conclusions require denial of Dominion‘s petition for mandamus relief. At a minimum, given our conclusions about the statutory scheme, Dominion has no “clear and indisputable” right to challenge a non-institution decision directly in this сourt, including by way of mandamus. That is all we need to decide.

As we have noted, Dominion has a challengе to the Director‘s non-institution decision pending in district court. The government‘s position is that section 314(d)‘s broad language precludes judicial review of the non-institution decision in that proceeding. The district court in Virginia has recently agreed.

Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Lee, No. 3:13CV699, 2014 WL 1572061 (E.D.Va. Apr. 18, 2014). We need not decide that issue here.

Director‘s decision to institute an inter partes review. Nor is there a clear and indisputable right to this ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍court‘s immediate review of а decision to institute an inter partes review, as would be needed for mandamus relief, just as Dominion holds that there is no such right with respect to a non-institution decision. Moreover, this is not one of the rare situations in which irremediable interim harm can justify mandamus, which is unavailable simply to relieve P & G of the burden of going through the inter partes review. Cf.

In re Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 516 F.3d 1003, 1004 (Fed.Cir.2008) (petitioner‘s “hardship [and] inconvenience” in going through trial did not provide a basis for mandamus“).

It is a separate question whether section 314(d) means that the decision to institute the review is unchаllengeable later—if the Board reaches a decision under section 318(a) and an appeal is taken under section 319. Perhaps section 314(d)‘s broad language precludes all judicial review of the institution decision, even in an eventual section 319 appeal. We need not decide that question, which can be addressed in a section 319 appeal. Nor need we address whether an immediatе challenge could be brought in district court.

In sum, P & G‘s mandamus petition is not a proper vehicle for chаllenging the institution of inter partes review.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

Notes

1

Section 314 assigns the decision to institute an inter partes review to the “Director.” § 314(a), (b). The Director, by regulation, has delegated ‍‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‍that decision to the Board. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4 & 42.108. The Board, in making the review-instituting decision, is exercising the Director‘s section 314 authority.

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date Published: Apr 24, 2014

Citation: 749 F.3d 1379

Docket Number: 14-109

Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cir.