United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., GOOGLE LLC, INTEL CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-1249 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:20-cv-06128-EJD, Judge Edward J. Davila. ______________________

Decided: March 13, 2023 ______________________

CATHERINE CARROLL, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appel- lants. Plaintiffs-appellants Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Intel Corporation also represented by DAVID LEHN; REBECCA M. LEE, San Francisco, CA; MARK D. SELWYN, Palo Alto, CA; ALYSON ZUREICK, New York, NY. Case: 22-1249 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2023

2 APPLE INC. v. VIDAL

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant Google LLC. Also represented by ANDREW DUFRESNE, Madison, WI.

CHRISTY G. LEA, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences LLC. Also represented by JOHN B. SGANGA, JR.

WEILI J. SHAW, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL GRANSTON, DANIEL TENNY; MICHAEL S. FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Alexandria, VA.

MARK S. DAVIES, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Acushnet Company, Al- liance for Automotive Innovation, Comcast Cable Commu- nications, LLC, Computer and Communication Industry Association, Dell, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., Juniper Networks, Inc., Micron Technology Inc., SAS Institute, Inc., Symmetry, LLC, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufactur- ing Company, Ltd., Verizon Services Corp., VIZIO, Inc., VMware, Inc. Also represented by ALEXANDRA BURSAK, New York, NY.

JAMES OLIVA, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Tor- rance, CA, for amicus curiae American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

ROBERT THOMAS SMITH, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Mylan Pharma- ceuticals Inc. Also represented by ERIC THOMAS WERLINGER; DEEPRO MUKERJEE, LANCE SODERSTROM, New York, NY. Case: 22-1249 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 03/13/2023

APPLE INC. v. VIDAL 3

MICHAEL BERTA, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Tesla, Inc. Also rep- resented by JAMES SHERWOOD, Tesla, Inc., Washington, DC. ______________________

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are Apple Inc. and four other companies that have repeatedly been sued for patent infringement and thereafter petitioned the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs), under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, so that the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board could adjudicate the petitions’ unpatentability challenges to patent claims that had been asserted against them in court. In the present action, brought against the Director in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701– 706, plaintiffs challenge instructions the Director issued to the Board to inform it how to ex