{"id":2839,"date":"2020-05-19T16:13:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-19T21:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2839"},"modified":"2020-07-19T05:14:36","modified_gmt":"2020-07-19T10:14:36","slug":"more-mischief-from-exempting-agency-action-from-review-real-party-in-interest-in-ipr-not-reviewable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2839","title":{"rendered":"More Mischief from Exempting Agency Action from Review: Real Party in Interest in IPR not Reviewable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/19-1659.Opinion.5-19-2020_1590336.pdf\">ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC<\/a>, [2019-1659] (May 19, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the institution of the IPR as non-reviewable, and affirmed the Board\u2019s obviousness determination of claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,415,130, which relates to \u201ca novel system and method for combining germicidal protection and aromatic diffusion in enclosed habitable spaces.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Based on the prior art and expert testimony, the Board determined that the challenged claims would have been obvious.&nbsp; The Federal Circuit found no error in the Board\u2019s decision to credit the opinion of one expert over another, and would not reweigh evidence on appeal. The Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board\u2019s finding that the prior art made the invention obvious.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because the Board\u2019s obviousness conclusion was not legally erroneous and the fact findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit affirmed obviousness determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;On the issue of whether the Petition properly named the real party in interest, based upon <em>Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,<\/em> and <em>Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP<\/em>, the Federal Circuit found we find no principled reason why preclusion of judicial review under \u00a7314(d) would not extend to a Board decision concerning the \u201creal parties in interest\u201d requirement of \u00a7 312(a)(2).&nbsp; Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that&nbsp; ESIP\u2019s challenge to the Board\u2019s \u201creal parties in interest\u201d determination \u201craises \u2018an ordinary dispute about the application of\u2019 an institution-related statute,\u201d and that \u00a7 314(d) precludes its review of that determination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, [2019-1659] (May 19, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the institution of the IPR as non-reviewable, and affirmed the Board\u2019s obviousness determination of claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,415,130, which relates &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2839\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inter-partes-review","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2839"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2840,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2839\/revisions\/2840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}