Congress committed institution decisions to the Director’s discretion . . . and protected exercise of that discretion from judicial review by making such determinations “final and nonappealable,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), mandamus is ordinarily unavailable for review of institution decisions . . . That general prohibition bars review of decisions denying institution of IPR proceedings for efficiency reasons based on parallel district court litigation involving the same patents . . . Cambridge’s constitutional challenges . . . fail to identify the kind of property rights or retroactivity concerns that might give rise to a colorable Due Process Clause claim . . . Cambridge’s expectation that the PTO would evaluate its petition based on only certain criteria, moreover, is insufficient to establish a constitutional due process violation . . . We reiterate that we do not decide whether the PTO’s actions are correct or whether the use of this factor is permitted under the statutes. Nor do we address the availability of mandamus relief for other challenges to institution decisions based on non-constitutional grounds. We decide only that Cambridge has failed to show a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested given the limits on our review of the PTO’s decision to deny institution.

(1) TS 7, TS 11, TS 20, and TS 24 are not sufficiently definite; (2) TS 11, TS 20, TS 23, and TS 24 are not “secret;” (3) TS 7, TS 11, TS 20, and TS 23 had never been used or disclosed by Goodyear; and (4) TS 11 and TS 20 were never conveyed by Coda to Goodyear.

"Meta relied on prior art combinations that used a Java Virtual Machine (“JVM”) to satisfy the “player” limitation . . . Express Mobile’s theory is that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not conclude that the JVM provides instructions “because it causes a different component—the servlet—to generate a webpage, which causes yet another component—the web server—to provide the webpage to the browser” . . . The Board agreed with Meta that “nothing in the challenged claims requires that the Player itself directly present or physically draw the user interface for the user; the claim requires only that the Player provide ‘instructions’ for such display” . . . These factual findings are supported by substantial evidence."

The 2004 application only broadly outlines the possible structures of the W_w peptide unit that are included in the linker protein . . . a patent’s disclosure of a “broad genus,” without more, is inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement for claims directed to a “particular subgenus or species contained therein.”