On April 24, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided three cases, holding in each that the America Invents Act (AIA) expressly precludes the appeal of a decision of the Director of the USPTO, acting through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on whether to institute an inter partes review of a patent. In all three decisions, the court emphasized that the AIA:

In St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Volcano Corp., the PTAB had denied institution of an inter partes review as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because St. Jude had been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent more than one year before filing its petition (No. 2014-1183, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014)). St. Jude appealed the Director's non-institution decision, and the Federal Circuit granted Volcano Corp.'s and the Director's motion to dismiss the appeal in view the language and structure of the AIA.

In In re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, the PTAB had denied institution of Dominion's petitions for inter partes review of five patents because Dominion had failed to show a reasonable likelihood that it would establish unpatentability of at least one challenged claim (Misc. Docket No. 109 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014)). The USPTO denied Dominion's requests for rehearing and Dominion petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus to the USPTO. The Federal Circuit denied Dominion's petition because the AIA precludes the appeal of a decision not to institute a review.

Finally, in In re Proctor & Gamble Co., the PTAB had granted inter partes review on three patents, and the patents' owner, Proctor & Gamble, objected (Misc. Docket No. 121, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014)). After the PTAB denied Proctor & Gamble's request for rehearing, Proctor & Gamble sought a writ of mandamus compelling the USPTO to cease the inter partes reviews. Citing St. Jude and Dominion, the Federal Circuit held that institution of an inter partes review is not a "final written decision," and therefore not appealable under the AIA. The court declined to decide whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes challenging the PTAB's decision to institute an inter partes review after the PTAB issues a final written decision.