11.2 PTAB Appeal Decisions & Judicial Review

11.2 PTAB Appeal Decisions & Judicial Review

Following the submission of briefs and any oral hearing, a three-member panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) evaluates the appeal and issues a decision. The decision of the Board, subsequent administrative remedies, and options for external judicial review are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 – § 41.54, MPEP Chapter 1200, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 and 145. Mastering the distinctions between Board outcomes and the procedural bifurcations of judicial review is essential for patent practitioners.

---

PTAB Board Decision Outcomes (37 C.F.R. § 41.50)

The Board has wide statutory authority in deciding an ex parte appeal. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a), the Board may:

• Affirm: Agree with the examiner's rejection of one or more claims (in whole or in part).
• Reverse: Overturn the examiner's rejection of one or more claims.
• Remand: Send the application back to the primary examiner for further consideration or search, without issuing a final ruling on patentability.
• Issue a New Ground of Rejection: Explicitly reject claims on grounds not previously relied upon by the examiner.

---

New Ground of Rejection by the Board (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b))

If the Board identifies a ground of rejection not advanced in the Examiner's Answer, it may issue a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Such a decision is explicitly deemed a non-final decision for purposes of judicial review, and triggers statutory safeguards for the applicant.

Applicant's Two Exclusive Options (2-Month Window):

Within 2 months from the date of the Board's decision, the applicant must choose one of the following two mutually exclusive courses of action:

1. Option 1: Reopen Prosecution Before the Examiner (§ 41.50(b)(1))
   • The applicant submits an amendment of the rejected claims or new evidence (e.g., Rule 132 affidavits).
   • Prosecution is reopened before the primary examiner. The examiner is bound by the Board's rejection but must consider the applicant's new amendments and evidence.
2. Option 2: Request Rehearing by the Board (§ 41.50(b)(2))
   • The applicant files a Request for Rehearing directly before the Board, arguing that the Board erred in its new ground of rejection based strictly on the existing record.
   • No new evidence or claim amendments may be introduced under this option.

Note: If the applicant takes no action within the 2-month period, the Board's § 41.50(b) decision becomes a final decision affirming the rejection, resulting in abandonment of the rejected claims.

---

Board Recommendations for Allowance or Rejection (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c))

Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c), the Board may include in its decision a recommendation that a claim allowed by the examiner should be rejected, or that a rejected claim may be allowed if amended in a specified manner.

• A recommendation for allowance is non-binding on the examiner but carries high persuasive weight.
• If the examiner follows a Board recommendation to reject an allowed claim, prosecution is reopened as to that claim.

---

Request for Rehearing Before the PTAB (37 C.F.R. § 41.52)

An applicant dissatisfied with a final decision of the Board may file a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52.

Procedural & Content Requirements:

• Timing: Must be filed within 2 months from the date of the Board's decision.
• Extensions: Non-extendable under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Extensions require a showing of cause under § 1.136(b).
• Strict Scope: The request must state with particularity the points of law or fact that the Board misapprehended or overlooked.
• No New Arguments or Evidence: The rehearing petition cannot present new arguments or new evidence that were not part of the original appeal record, unless justified by good cause.
• Board Action: The Board may grant or deny the request, or modify its original decision. Filing a timely Request for Rehearing resets the clock for seeking judicial review.

---

Judicial Review Pathways: 35 U.S.C. § 141 vs. 35 U.S.C. § 145

If the applicant receives an adverse final PTAB decision (or after a Request for Rehearing is decided), the applicant may seek external judicial review. Congress provided two mutually exclusive pathways for judicial review under the Patent Act.

                               Adverse Final PTAB Decision
                                           │
                   ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
                   ▼                                               ▼
   Direct Appeal to Federal Circuit                   Civil Action in E.D. Va.
       (35 U.S.C. § 141)                                (35 U.S.C. § 145)
  • Closed administrative record                  • De novo evidentiary trial
  • Substantial evidence standard                 • May introduce NEW evidence
  • No liability for USPTO legal expenses         • Must pay ALL USPTO expenses

Pathway 1: Direct Appeal to the Federal Circuit (35 U.S.C. § 141)

• Forum: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
• Deadline: Must file a Notice of Appeal within 63 days of the PTAB final decision or decision on rehearing (37 C.F.R. § 90.3).
• Evidentiary Record: Strictly restricted to the closed administrative record established at the USPTO. No new evidence or live witness testimony may be introduced.
• Standard of Review:
  • Legal questions (e.g., claim construction, statutory interpretation): Reviewed de novo.
  • Factual determinations (e.g., prior art disclosures, level of ordinary skill): Reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• Expenses: Each party bears its own litigation costs.

Pathway 2: Civil Action Against the USPTO Director (35 U.S.C. § 145)

• Forum: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Va.).
• Deadline: Must commence civil action within 63 days of the PTAB final decision or decision on rehearing (37 C.F.R. § 90.3).
• De Novo Evidentiary Trial: The applicant is permitted to introduce new documentary evidence and live expert testimony that was not presented to the USPTO (established in Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012)).
• Standard of Review: If new evidence is presented on a factual issue, the district court considers that issue de novo. If no new evidence is presented, APA substantial evidence deferential review applies.
• Mandatory Expense Shift: Under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the applicant is statutorily required to pay all expenses of the proceeding incurred by the USPTO (including USPTO attorney/paralegal time and expert witness fees), regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses.

---

Comparison of Judicial Review Pathways