Whether “the panel’s decision is contrary to the following decisions: Cuozzo Speech Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016); SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020); and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review where the appeal argues that the decision was based on an agency rule that exceeds the Office’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, or was adopted without observance of procedure required by law.”
