United States: Standard For Amending Claims In IPR May Need To Change

Last Updated: March 18 2014
Article by Christopher L. McKee

Law360, New York (March 13, 2014, 1:08 PM ET) -- The Idle Free decision1 denied the patent owner's motion to amend claims on the ground that the patent owner had not proven the patentability of the claims over the prior art. Remarkably, the decision makes no reference to the petitioner's proofs on the issue, but rather denies the motion solely on the basis of perceived deficiencies in the patent owner's showing of patentability. Under Idle Free, not only is the burden on the patent owner to prove patentability of its amended claims, but "general patentability over prior art" must be demonstrated.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board routinely cites to Idle Free as setting forth the standard for a motion to amend in an inter partes review. Many believe that the requirements for a motion to amend as articulated in Idle Free are extreme and very difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy. At present, the author is unaware of any decision by the board granting a motion to amend, other than one merely canceling claims. A patent owner's opportunity to amend its claims in an IPR may be hampered to such an extent that due process concerns may be raised. It appears questionable whether the procedure is consistent with the enacting statute.

In Idle Free, the patent owner Bergstrom represented in its motion to amend that the closest prior art was the prior art addressed in the IPR. The patent owner explained how the amended claims were patentably distinguished over this prior art. The board agreed, but held that it was insufficient to show patentability over just the references applied in the IPR.

The board required that the patent owner describe the level of skill in the art, in terms of the skill set and ordinary creativity of one of ordinary skill in the art. Reasonable enough. It is other aspects of the decision that give rise to concern.

The board held that the patent owner has the obligation to distinguish not only the prior art of record, but the prior art in general (that the patent owner knows about). According to the board, this means that the patent owner is required to address whether the features added by amendment were known in any context, and if so, why those features would not have been obvious in the context of the claimed invention.

Some believe that the board's approach in Idle Free is problematic, not just because it requires the patent owner to prove a negative (the nonexistence of invalidating prior art), but because of the lengths it appears to require a patent owner to go to in raising and then distinguishing prior art — within highly constrained briefing. The test announced raises concern also because it is seemingly arbitrarily variable based upon what the patent owner may or may not know about the relevant prior art.

In a switch from patent prosecution and litigation, the board has placed the burden upon the patent owner to show patentability of amended claims over the prior art. Its rationale for this is that an IPR is an adjudicative rather than examinational proceeding.2 The board is not in a position to "examine" patent claims as a patent examiner does in patent prosecution or re-examination.

The board also points to its rule that for any motion in an IPR, the movant is required to show that it is entitled to the relief requested.3 But neither of these rationales justifies the demanding Idle Free approach. The extreme burdens placed upon the patent owner are unnecessary for the board to avoid having to "examine" claims to ascertain their patentability. In a modified approach proposed below, the patent owner may reasonably be deemed to have established entitlement to the relief requested with its motion to amend without satisfying all of the Idle Free requirements.

Proof of a Negative

Initially, it is notable that the board's approach of placing the burden on the patent owner to prove the patentability of its amended claims is novel procedurally under U.S. patent law. In original prosecution and re-examination, one is deemed entitled to a patent in the absence of a showing of unpatentability. In litigation, a patent claim is presumed valid until proven invalid.

As mentioned, the board cites to its Rule (42.20(c)) as a basis for placing the burden of proving the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner.4 This rule, addressing motions generally, provides that a "moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested." However, it appears at least arguable that such an application of the rule to motions to amend is contrary to the enacting statute. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) provides: "Evidentiary Standards — In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence." No distinction is drawn here between original patent claims and proposed amended claims.

It is not unheard of for the law to impose upon a party the burden of proving a negative. For example, the plaintiff in a negligence action may be required to show an absence of due care on the defendant's part. However, even assuming that it is statutorily permissible to place the burden to prove patentability of amended claims on the patent owner, arguably the burden to prove a negative should not be imposed where proof of the negative in question (here, the nonexistence of any invalidating prior art) is impractical for the party bearing the burden in the proceeding, and where the opposing party (here, the petitioner) is in a much better position to prove the opposite (the existence of invalidating prior art).


The board's approach in Idle Free appears to have the potential to result in arbitrary unfairness. By requiring the patent owner to address the prior art known to it, the Idle Free standard would seemingly discriminate against patent owners having knowledge of a large amount of relevant prior art, versus those having knowledge of little prior art.

In both complex and simple technologies, it would not be unusual for hundreds of relevant prior art references to exist. One might ask: Why should the patent owner with a vast awareness of all those references have a burden to patentably distinguish over them all, whereas a patent owner with much less extensive knowledge would have a commensurately lesser burden?

Idle Free critics also observe that there is potential unfairness because the patent owner has no reasonable basis for determining just how far it has to go in explaining away known prior art references. By the directive of Idle Free, it is insufficient for the patent owner to only address the references in the relevant art. Rather, the patent owner must go further to explain away prior art applications of features added by amendment in other contexts.

Critics are concerned that it could often be impractical to expect the patent owner to show patentability to the extent required by Idle Free. For example, it would not be uncommon for the prior art of record, and prior art otherwise known to the patent owner, to include 10, 50, 100 or more arguably relevant references. Preparing an explanation of how the proffered claim amendments distinguish over all such art could be an enormous undertaking.

In a typical case, a feature added by amendment may be known in many different contexts. Idle Free's requirement that the patent owner address the existence of added features in applications outside the field of invention compounds the patent owner's burden.

And to what benefit? The board emphasizes the importance of "convergence" in its trial proceedings, that is, the rapid narrowing of issues in the course of the trial.5 To require the patent owner to raise and knock down an indeterminate number of straw men fails to focus on the key issues, and thus would seem to run contrary to this objective.

The patent owner's task in complying with the Idle Free standard is rendered all the more difficult by the strict briefing limitations imposed by the board. Only 15 pages are permitted for a motion to amend, inclusive of the listing of proposed substitute claims.6 Fourteen-point font is required, as is double spacing.7 In many cases, it may be unrealistic to expect the patent owner to be able to prove the patentability of amended claims over the prior art in general within such constraints. Due process concerns could thus be raised.

A Better Approach?

An approach that would give the patent owner a fairer opportunity to amend its claims, while furthering the board's objective to maintain a streamlined, adjudicative (nonexaminational) proceeding, would be an improvement. Granted, the board should not be put in a position of having to examine amended claims to ascertain their patentability. It need not be, given the presence of the petitioner who is in the best position to bring forward arguments against patentability. This dynamic is at the heart of the adjudicative/adversarial model adopted for trials conducted before the PTAB.

Setting aside the issue of whether placing the burden on the patent owner to prove the patentability of its amended claims comports with the enacting statute, in the author's view, there is a more practical and fair approach that the board could take. The approach would be to require the patent owner to initially establish the patentability of the claims over the prior art applied in the trial to the corresponding original claims. Upon doing so, the burden of production would be deemed shifted to the petitioner to rebut the arguments of patentability (with, as is currently permitted, the opportunity to introduce new evidence).

This makes sense since the petitioner, as the adverse party, is generally in a much better position to raise meritorious unpatentability grounds regarding amended claims, than is the patent owner to address the patentability of amended claims over some indeterminate universe of known prior art.

Presented with such patent owner arguments and evidence, and the petitioner's opposing arguments and evidence, the board would be well situated to decide whether, on balance, the patent owner has met its burden to prove patentability of the amended claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Absent countervailing arguments, a patent owner's persuasive showing that the amended claims patentably distinguish over the prior art applied in the trial to the corresponding original claims would be deemed sufficient to satisfy the patent owner's burden to establish entitlement to the relief requested with its motion to amend.


1 Final Written Decision entered Jan. 7, 2014 in Idle Free Systems Inc. v. Bergstrom Inc., IPR 2012-00027, Paper 66 (PTAB).

2 Idle Free, IPR 2012-00027, Paper 66 at 33.

3 Id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).

4 Idle Free, IPR 2012-00027, Paper 26 at 7; Paper 66 at 26 and 33.

5 See, e.g., Idle Free, IPR 2012-00027, Paper 26 at 4 ("The Board seeks to streamline and converge issues at all phases of the proceeding.").

6 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v); Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR 2012-00042, Paper 30 (PTAB).

7 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions