NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
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
2016-2388, 2017-1020
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-01093.
Decided: December 11, 2017
THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSHUA LLOYD STERN, DAVID LANGDON
22 ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. ILLUMINA, INC.
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.
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.