In SAS Institute Inc v Iancu, SCOTUS Ruled That When the USPTO Conducts Inter Partes Review, it Must Decide Patentability of All Challenged Claims
In SAS Institute Inc v Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) conducts an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all challenged claims. The decision follows the Court’s prior ruling in upholding the validity of the entire inter partes review process.
Legal and Factual Background of SAS Institute Inc v Iancu
Inter partes review (IPR) allows private parties to challenge previously issued patent claims in an adversarial process before USPTO. The Director of the USPTO may institute a review after determining “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a), the USPTO “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner” at the close of the litigation.
SAS Institute Inc. (SAS) sought review of respondent ComplementSoft’s software patent, alleging that all 16 of the patent’s claims were unpatentable. Relying on a USPTO regulation (37 CFR §42.108(a)) recognizing a power of “partial institution,” the Director instituted review on some of the claims and denied review on the rest. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final decision addressed only the claims on which the Director had instituted review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected SAS’s argument that §318(a) required the Board to decide the patentability of every claim challenged in the IPR petition.
Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Regulation
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the majority held that the USPTO must decide the patentability of all challenged claims.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the plain text of §318(a). “The word ‘shall’ generally imposes a nondiscretionary duty, and the word ‘any’ ordinarily implies every member of a group,” Justice Gorsuch explained. “Thus, §318(a) means that the Board must address every claim the petitioner has challenged.”
The Court also rejected the USPTO’s argument that the Director has the discretion to institute a partial review, concluding that both the text and context strongly counsel against inferring such a power. Justice Gorsuch wrote:
Section 314(a)’s requirement that the Director find “a reasonable likelihood” that the petitioner will prevail on “at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” suggests, if anything, a regime where a reasonable prospect of success on a single claim justifies review of them all. Again, if Congress had wanted to adopt the Director’s claim-by-claim approach, it knew how to do so. See §304. Nor does it follow that, because §314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review, it also invests him with discretion regarding what claims that review will encompass.
Justice Gorsuch went on to note that the USPTO should raise its concerns about IPR proceedings with Congress. “The Director’s policy argument—that partial institution is efficient because it permits the Board to focus on the most promising challenges and avoid spending time and resources on others—is properly addressed to Congress, not this Court,” he wrote.
The Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu will likely impact how both petitioners and patent holders approach IPR proceedings. We encourage businesses to consult with an experienced patent attorney regarding the potential implications for your organization.
If you have any questions about the case, please contact us
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SAS Institute Inc v Iancu: SCOTUS Rules Inter Partes Review Proceedings Must Address All Claims
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In SAS Institute Inc v Iancu, SCOTUS Ruled That When the USPTO Conducts Inter Partes Review, it Must Decide Patentability of All Challenged Claims
In SAS Institute Inc v Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) conducts an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all challenged claims. The decision follows the Court’s prior ruling in upholding the validity of the entire inter partes review process.
Legal and Factual Background of SAS Institute Inc v Iancu
Inter partes review (IPR) allows private parties to challenge previously issued patent claims in an adversarial process before USPTO. The Director of the USPTO may institute a review after determining “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a), the USPTO “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner” at the close of the litigation.
SAS Institute Inc. (SAS) sought review of respondent ComplementSoft’s software patent, alleging that all 16 of the patent’s claims were unpatentable. Relying on a USPTO regulation (37 CFR §42.108(a)) recognizing a power of “partial institution,” the Director instituted review on some of the claims and denied review on the rest. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final decision addressed only the claims on which the Director had instituted review. On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected SAS’s argument that §318(a) required the Board to decide the patentability of every claim challenged in the IPR petition.
Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Regulation
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the majority held that the USPTO must decide the patentability of all challenged claims.
In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the plain text of §318(a). “The word ‘shall’ generally imposes a nondiscretionary duty, and the word ‘any’ ordinarily implies every member of a group,” Justice Gorsuch explained. “Thus, §318(a) means that the Board must address every claim the petitioner has challenged.”
The Court also rejected the USPTO’s argument that the Director has the discretion to institute a partial review, concluding that both the text and context strongly counsel against inferring such a power. Justice Gorsuch wrote:
Section 314(a)’s requirement that the Director find “a reasonable likelihood” that the petitioner will prevail on “at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” suggests, if anything, a regime where a reasonable prospect of success on a single claim justifies review of them all. Again, if Congress had wanted to adopt the Director’s claim-by-claim approach, it knew how to do so. See §304. Nor does it follow that, because §314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review, it also invests him with discretion regarding what claims that review will encompass.
Justice Gorsuch went on to note that the USPTO should raise its concerns about IPR proceedings with Congress. “The Director’s policy argument—that partial institution is efficient because it permits the Board to focus on the most promising challenges and avoid spending time and resources on others—is properly addressed to Congress, not this Court,” he wrote.
The Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu will likely impact how both petitioners and patent holders approach IPR proceedings. We encourage businesses to consult with an experienced patent attorney regarding the potential implications for your organization.
If you have any questions about the case, please contact us
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
