In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Cuozzo Speed Technologies’ appeal.  Cuozzo was attempting to prove that the claim interpretation used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was incorrect.  Currently, the PTAB uses the “broadest reasonable interpretation” to determine if inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are warranted; rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard which federal district courts are constrained to use in litigation.  Furthermore, Cuozzo also sought to garner a ruling saying that if the PTAB exceeds its authority in instituting IPR proceedings, the decision would be judicially reviewable.

In a 6-5 split, the Federal Circuit ruled against Cuozzo on both matters.  The Federal Circuit also denied petitioner Cuozzo’s request for rehearing en banc, despite a sharp dissent from Judge Pauline Newman.  Without other recourse, Cuozzo has now filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in a hope to declare that the Federal Circuit erred on both points.  Cuozzo’s main thrust lies on the legislative intent behind the inclusion of IPR proceedings in the America Invents Act (AIA).  In enacting the AIA, Cuozzo argues that IPR proceedings were intended as a surrogate for litigation.  As such, the argument goes, the IPR claim interpretation should be identical to that used by federal courts in litigation.  Judge Newman seems to adopt the position in her dissent saying that, “[t]he panel majority thwarts the statutory plan in several ways.”  In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Newman, P. dissenting).

In addition, several amici curiae briefs have been filed in support of Cuozzo from such companies as 3M, Sanofi Pasteur, and Johnson & Johnson.  The briefs focus Cuozzo’s first argument of claim construction, arguing against the application of “broadest reasonable intention.”  On policy grounds, the briefs point to the fact that Congress intended IPRs as an alternative to litigation and should, therefore, follow the courts in “plain and ordinary meaning.”  Because the PTAB is undermining Congress’ intent, the briefs secondarily argue that the PTO should not be given the normal administrative law deference normally granted to executive agencies.  Finally, the briefs make the argument that the broader standard is contrary to the presumption of validity that attaches to every issued patent.  As the amici curiae have been submitted, 12월 9 is the deadline for the government to file its responsive brief.

Cuozzo’s position, the amici curiae, and Judge Newman’s dissent lay some interesting groundwork if SCOTUS decides to take up the case.  In any case, the answer to these question will have a profound impact on what the IPR process looks like going forward.


Related Content

Setting the Tone of Prosecution with Patent Analytics There is no perfect formula for prosecuting a patent, but there is plenty of information out there that can be used to help anticipate a patent examin...
Patent Litigation and “The Ice Cream of the Future” Dippin’ Dots are enjoyed around the world. The delicious ice cream pellets can be found most commonly at amusement parks and have been known to hit th...
Webinar Recording: What the CAFC’s Recent 101 Decisions Mean for Software and Wireless Devices Listen as Gene Quinn, founder and president of, Bob Stoll,Co-Chair of the IP Practice Group at Drinker Biddle, and former Commissioner ...

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. Cookie Policy

이 웹 사이트의 쿠키 설정은 "쿠키 허용"으로 설정되어 최상의 브라우징 환경을 제공합니다. 쿠키 설정을 변경하지 않고 이 웹 사이트를 계속 사용하거나 아래의 "동의"를 클릭하면 동의하는 것입니다.