We review "the Board's application of its permissive interference rules for an abuse of discretion." Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Abrutyn v. Giovanniello, 15 F.3d 1048, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1527-28 (Fed. Cir. 1992). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.

37 C.F.R. § 1.616 (1993). A board decision pursuant to the permissive rules governing an interference is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1527-28, 24 USPQ2d 1912, 1915-16 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (vacating default judgment in interference for abuse of discretion). Thus, we review the Board's decision to enter the December 18 default judgment for an abuse of discretion.

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Finally this court reviews the Board's application of its permissive interference rules for an abuse of discretion. Abrutyn v. Giovanniello, 15 F.3d 1048, 1050, 29 USPQ2d 1615, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1527-28, 24 USPQ2d 1912, 1915-16 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). I.

Thus, we give substantial deference to the Board's decisions enforcing its own procedural rules, including case management rules related to when and how notice of an argument must be given under the Board's own rules. See Am. Nat'l Mfg. Inc. v. Sleep No. Corp., 52 F.4th 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (giving "deference to the Board's application of" regulation governing adequacy of notice provided in inter partes review petition); see also Sunbio Corp. v. Biogrand Co., No. 2021-1433, 2021 WL 5896525, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2021) ("Typically, we give deference to the [Trademark] Board's decisions related to a party's compliance with the Board's own rules."); Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (deference warranted in "proper recognition to the interest of the Board . . . in maintaining control over the management of . . . proceedings" before it). Given that deference, we will find an abuse of discretion only if the Board's "decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision." Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1367.

Bouchard, 347 F.3d at 1307 (citing Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, Infineum does not challenge the Board's determination, grounded in the '685 patent specification and the prior art of record, that "one of ordinary skill in the art could have experience in either formulating an engine oil or testing such oils in internal combustion engines." Decision, 2019 WL 5806946, at *5.

The criteria for the award of sanctions are well-established. In Gerritsen v. Shirai , 979 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1992), this court applied these criteria to the PTAB's award of sanctions in an interference action. We stated that "[w]e have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141 and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A)," and summarized the criteria for review of the PTAB's sanction award:

Abuse of discretion occurs if the ruling: "(1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) follows from a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision." Bouchard, 347 F.3d at 1307 (citing Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

We affirm the Board's rulings on discovery and sanctions unless we find the Board abused its discretion. See SMS Data Products Grp., Inc. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1553, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1990); c.f. Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1527-29 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (establishing review of PTAB sanctions decisions for an abuse of discretion). The Board did not abuse its discretion when it found that, while the government had no reasonable explanation for its year-long production delay, Mr. Zoeller failed to show that the delay caused him material prejudice or undue burden.

When reviewing an agency decision for abuse of discretion, the court examines whether the decision “1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; 2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; 3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or 4) follows from a record that contains no evidence on which the [agency] could rationally base its decision.” Sterling Fed. Sys., Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177, 1182 (Fed.Cir.1994) (quoting Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed.Cir.1992) ); see also Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1147–48 (Fed.Cir.2011) (noting a clear error of judgment occurs when an action is “arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable”).Here, as noted by the CIT and the Government, Hartford has alleged facts about a fraud investigation involving other entries made by Sunline and a different supplier, Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., which is not connected to this case.

This is "the broadest of the Office's rulemaking powers" and, "[b]y this grant of power we understand Congress to have `delegated plenary authority over PTO practice . . .' to the Office." Stevens v. Tama% 366 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Gerritsen v. Shirai 979 F.2d 1524, 1527 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); see also Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), the PTO has broad authority to govern the conduct of proceedings before it. . . ."). To comply with section 2(b)(2)(A), a Patent Office rule must be "procedural" — i.e., it must "govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office."