“We consider two provisions of the [Leahy–Smith America Invents] Act.” 1. “The first says: ‘No Appeal.—The determination by the Director [of the Patent Office] whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and non-appealable.’ [35 U.S.C.] § 314(d). Does this provision bar a court from considering whether the Patent Office wrongly ‘determin[ed] . . . to institute an inter partes review,’ ibid., when it did so on grounds not specifically mentioned in a third party’s review request?” 2. “The second provision grants the Patent Office the authority to issue ‘regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.’ [35 U.S.C.] § 316(a)(4). Does this provision authorize the Patent Office to issue a regulation stating that the agency, in inter partes review, ‘shall [construe a patent claim according to] its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears’? 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2015).”
1. “We conclude that the first provision, though it may not bar consideration of a constitutional question, for example, does bar judicial review of the kind of mine-run claim at issue here, involving the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review.” 2. “We also conclude that the second provision authorizes the Patent Office to issue the regulation before us.”
