The Unreviewable Director: How 314(d) Shields the USPTO's IPR Denial Regime from Judicial Oversight

"The Federal Circuit has closed the courthouse doors on the second wave of challenges to the USPTO's restrictive new IPR institution policies. In four orders issued December 8-9, 2025, the same three-judge panel (Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes) denied mandamus petitions from Cambridge Industries, SanDisk, Western Digital, HighLevel, and Inari Agriculture, each seeking to challenge discretionary denials of inter partes review institution."

"The decisions follow the court's November ruling in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 2025-134, 159 F.4th 30 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025), and collectively establish that the "final and nonappealable" language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges."

"The Federal Circuit refused to disturb that decision, rejecting Cambridge's arguments that the settled expectations factor exceeds statutory authority, was imposed without notice-and-comment rulemaking, and violates due process. The court emphasized that it was not deciding whether the USPTO's actions were correct or permitted by statute, but only that Cambridge had not shown a "clear and indisputable right" to mandamus relief given the limits on judicial review."

The Federal Circuit denied multiple mandamus petitions challenging the USPTO's discretionary denials of inter partes review in four December 2025 orders. The same three-judge panel rejected petitions from Cambridge Industries, SanDisk, Western Digital, HighLevel, and Inari Agriculture. The court relied on its November Motorola ruling to conclude that the "final and nonappealable" language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes virtually all judicial oversight of institution decisions, including constitutional, statutory ultra vires, and APA challenges. In the lead Cambridge case, the court refused to overturn a denial based on the settled expectations doctrine, finding no clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief.

Read at Patently-O