Apple v. Iancu: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff Summary Judgment Motion, PTAB Litigation Blog
Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.
Since the PTAB designated Apple v. Fintiv precedential, the six-factor, “holistic” test has been increasingly used to discretionarily deny institution of petitions challenging claims already subject to parallel litigation proceedings. Among the factors weighed by the PTAB are system efficiency and fairness, in addition to avoiding duplicative disposition of issues in different forums. On August 31, 2020, plaintiffs Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corporation filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against then Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Director”), Andre Iancu. The plaintiffs allege: (1) the Director exceeded his statutory authority provided in the America Invents Act (“AIA”) by adopting the Fintiv rule; (2) the Fintiv rule itself is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the AIA; and (3) the Director could not adopt the Fintiv rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on November 23, 2020, arguing plaintiffs lack standing as they cannot establish either a concrete injury, or that their injuries would not be redressed by the relief sought. Defendant further argues the plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the same date, arguing that each of the three arguments presented in the complaint is ripe for decision as a matter of law.
