USPTO proposes pilot where a single APJ would make IPR institution decisions

By Gene Quinn
August 25, 2015

judge-prisoner-sentencing-prayEarlier today the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a request for comments in the Federal Register relating to a proposed pilot program exploring the possibility of having a single Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) determine whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR). Presently the USPTO has a panel of three APJs decide whether to institute a trial, and then normally has the same three-APJ panel conduct the trial, if instituted. Under the proposed pilot program the single APJ making the IPR institution decision would be on the panel conducting the IPR trial, joined by two other APJs not associated with the IPR institution decision.

According to the Federal Register notice, “the USPTO is pro-actively looking for ways to enhance its operations for the benefit of stakeholders,” which is in part how and why this pilot proposal came into being. More specifically, this pilot program is being floated as the result of comments received from the public through the various public fora, as well comments in response to formal requests.

The USPTO explains in the notice that the Office “believes it is prudent to explore other potentially more efficient options [to review IPR petitions], especially given that the number of petitions filed may continue to increase.”

Notwithstanding this legitimate attempt to stay ahead of workflow increases, the USPTO has been criticized by at several high profile industry leaders questioned the procedural fairness of the PTAB. For example, Phil Johnson has explained that he wonders whether the PTAB is affording patent owners the required level of due process given the fact that a property right will be potentially stripped from the patent owner. One area of due process concern Johnson has raised includes that the PTAB is both deciding whether to initiate and conducting the trial. The issue of affording patent owners proper due process is particularly critical, according to Johnson, because “the PTAB is now both deciding on the institution of and the conduct of these IPRs and PGRs, and of course, they’re issuing the final decisions.” See Are PTAB Proceedings Fundamentally Unfair to Patent Owners?


There is no doubt that there would be efficiencies gained if the USPTO were able to have only a single APJ make IPR institution decisions. The Office explains:

Having a single judge decide whether to institute trial in a post grant proceeding, instead of a panel of three judges, would allow more judges to be available to attend to other matters, such as reducing the ex parte appeal backlog and handling more post grant proceedings.

Regardless of efficiencies, having a single APJ make institution determinations is fraught with due process concerns because decision whether to institute an inter partes review is not appealable. See 35 U.S.C. 314(d).

There seems to be something uniquely unfair about an agency decision that cannot be appealed to an Article III judge. Granting unelected agency officials ultimate, king-like decision-making powers runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution, if not the text of the Constitution itself. Agencies such as the USPTO are a part of the Executive Branch of government. If a USPTO decision cannot be appealed that means that the Judiciary is helpless to review actions by the Executive Branch. This upsets the delicate balance of power struck between the three branches of government. It is also an exceptionally dangerous precedent to set. A very strong argument could be made that such dictatorial powers granted to the PTAB (by and through the statute in conjunction with Federal Circuit interpretations) are unconstitutional.

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately be asked to review the issue of whether institution decisions are appealable. In the meantime, we are left with a statute that absolutely insulates the PTAB from Judicial review. This is bad enough when three APJs are collectively considering whether to grant an IPR petition and hold a trial. To put decision-making authority for a non-appealable decision in the hands of a single person just doesn’t comport with traditional notions of fair play and justice. Truthfully, if this type of thing were to be taking place in another country we in the United States would ridicule the process and point to it as an example of the type of “justice” handed out in a Banana Republic.

I don’t doubt that the APJs making institution decisions are good people who are doing their best. These APJs are ordinary people just trying to do the best job they can, and frankly they are placed in a terribly awkward position. What would you do if you knew that a decision to institute couldn’t be reviewed or challenged on appeal? Could this account for the high rate of decisions to institute?

The argument is made that if the decision to institute was faulty the patent owner will prevail, but this misses at least three major points. First, the decision to institute will cost the patent owner between $500,000 to $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. Second, the PTAB is far more likely to weave references together to support an obviousness rejection than federal courts. Third, the deck is stacked against the patent owner in an IPR given that the patent right – a property right – can be stripped using standards of proof below what would be used by a district court judge during a patent litigation. This being the case, decisions to institute should be slanted toward the patent owner, not against the patent owner.

My protest is not about the decision-maker, but rather about process. Regardless of whether there is a single decision-maker or a panel of three decision-makers, it is fundamentally inappropriate for any agency decision to be absolutely insulated from Judicial review, period.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 5 Comments comments.

  1. Night Writer August 26, 2015 5:07 am

    One is a bad idea. The other two act like reviewers. The decision has to be good enough for them to put their names on it.

  2. Anon August 26, 2015 7:17 am

    There has to be consequences to putting their name on it. Otherwise, even a system of three names is meaningless.

  3. Edward Heller August 26, 2015 9:54 am

    Imagine the same jury decided whether there was probable cause to indict and then decided on the guilt or innocence based on “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    A senior examiner should make the initial determination under 314(a), the merits institution decision. A panel of APJs should make decisions under 315 (bars and estoppels) and 312 that are collateral to the merits, but final.

  4. Edward Heller August 26, 2015 10:10 am

    And, might I add, that senior examiner should have long familiarity with the art involved in the patent.

  5. EG August 26, 2015 3:45 pm

    Hey Gene,

    As others have said, this is a terrible idea, on par with the USPTO misrepresenting many years ago that a Board decision based on the appeal/reply briefs alone would be treated the same as an appeal that included a request for oral hearing. As I later found out (much to my dismay and anger), if there was no request for oral hearing, your appeal could rise or more likely fall on the primary Board member who was handling your case. If the primary Board member was adverse, all he/she had to do was convince one of the other two Board members for that panel to go along with that adverse decision, and your appeal was essentially over. After I learned that, I always requested an oral hearing as my “insurance policy” against the essentially “unilateral decision” of the primary Board member.