Patent Law Practice Center

Supreme Court will decide whether BRI or Phillips standard applies to IPR claims

During patent examination, pending patent claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) that is consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

The Patent Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation in virtually all circumstances. It is, however, true that at least one situation where the Patent Office does not use broadest reasonable interpretation is when a reexamination of a patent is undertaken and reexamination will not be concluded until after the patent term has expired. The position of the USPTO is that, in this situation, a patent could not be changed because the term has expired; therefore, the only remaining “life” a patent has would be in litigation because the statute of limitations for a patent infringement action is six years. Thus, the USPTO applies the Phillips standard. (Further discussion of this advanced topic goes beyond the scope of this article, which is intended to be a primer on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.)

(more…)

Finjan shows patent owner can prevail at IPR institution stage

Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), the parent of wholly owned subsidiary Finjan, Inc., recently announced that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) denied six of Symantec Corporation’s petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of Finjan patents.

“This is an unprecedented response by the US Patent Office,” stated Phil Hartstein (left), President and CEO of Finjan, upon learning of the decision of the PTAB.

The word “unprecedented” gets thrown around all too frequently, but the use of the word here does seem entirely appropriate. That Finjan would prevail in six separate IPR institution decisions relating to the same patent litigation seems nothing short of extraordinary given that the PTAB is instituting 80% of IPR petitions, and given how slanted IPR rules are against the patent owner, particularly at the institution stage.

(more…)

Federal Circuit shines ray of hope for substitute claims in IPR

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, relating to an appeal from the inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011, owned by Nike.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the IPR petition filed by Adidas AG and instituted inter partes review of claims 1–46 of the ’011 patent. Nike then filed a motion to amend in which it requested cancellation of claims 1–46 and proposed substitute claims 47–50. The PTAB granted the motion to cancel claims 1-46, but denied the motion to substitute claims, as has become the norm in virtually all cases.

(more…)

CAFC says same panel can decide institution and merits in IPR

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inv. V. Covidien LP, an appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The dispute arose as the result of a Covidien inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,317,070 (“the ’070 patent”), which is owned by Ethicon. The PTAB granted the petition and the IPR proceeded to a decision on the merits. On the merits, the same panel that determined that the petition should proceed in the first place, found all challenged claims invalid as obvious over the prior art.

Ethicon appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the PTAB’s final decision was invalid because the same Board panel made both the decision to institute and the final decision. Ethicon also argued that the Board erred in finding the claims obvious.

(more…)

Supreme Court accepts Inter Partes Review Appeal

On Friday, January 15, 2016, the United States Supreme Court accepted the petitioner’s request to hear Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, a case that will now require the Court to address two questions about inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

IPR proceedings were created by the America Invents Act (AIA), which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. IPR and the other two forms of post-grant challenge to issued patents — Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) Review — did not become available as a procedure to challenge patents until September 16, 2012. Thus, these proceedings are quite new and Cuozzo will be the first opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on these controversial administrative proceedings.

According to the statute, “[a] person who is not the owner of a patent may file a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. 311(a). Significantly for this appeal, the statute also says: “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C.314(d). Additionally, although the statute is silent as to the proper claim construction standard to use in post grant proceedings, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has decided to apply the familiar standard used elsewhere throughout the Office, which is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) rather than the so-called “Phillips standard” that is used in district court litigation and narrowly construes claims in an already issued patent. (more…)