About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) | Main | Webinar on Defending Patents in IPR Proceedings »

July 16, 2015


Hey Andrew,

As I've noted in my article posted Monday on IPWatchdog, as well as David Boundy's article posted on Patently-O much earlier relating to the Cuozzo Speed Technologies cases, the Federal Circuit needs to consider not only what is reviewable in view of the AIA, but also the overriding appellate review command of the APA which is not specifically excluded by the AIA. If the PTAB institutes a CBM or IPR proceeding that is clearly not in compliance with the PTAB's own regulations for such procedures (as allegedly occurred in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies situation), or which is "not in accordance with law" in terms of what is defined as a CBM under the AIA, the APA (not the AIA) controls such appellate review.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31