Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.

Full title: ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellant v. ILLUMINA, INC., Appellee JOSEPH…

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2017

2016-2388 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2017)

Opinion

2016-2388 2017-1020

12-11-2017

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellant v. ILLUMINA, INC., Appellee JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor

THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSHUA LLOYD STERN, DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, JOSHUA KOPPEL, HEATHER M. PETRUZZI; ROBERT J. GUNTHER, JR., New York, NY. EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by DEREK C. WALTER. BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, MICHAEL SUMNER FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-01093. THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSHUA LLOYD STERN, DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, JOSHUA KOPPEL, HEATHER M. PETRUZZI; ROBERT J. GUNTHER, JR., New York, NY. EDWARD R. REINES, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by DEREK C. WALTER. BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, MICHAEL SUMNER FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER. Before MOORE, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Ariosa appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") inter partes review decision holding claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 were not anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0172946 ("Fan") because Fan was not prior art. Because the Board did not err in determining that Fan is not prior art and did not abuse its discretion in denying Ariosa's request for rehearing, we affirm the Board's decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the termination of the ex parte reexamination proceedings, we dismiss the appeal of the termination of those proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.