United States: In First Appeal Decision From A PTAB Final Written Decision, Federal Circuit Holds PTAB IPR Institution Decisions Not Appealable, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Proper For IPR Proceedings

On February 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its first opinion addressing an appeal from a final written decision of the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") in post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act ("AIA"). In affirming the PTAB's determination that the challenged claims were obvious, the Federal Circuit held that it had no jurisdiction to review on appeal the PTAB's decision instituting the underlying Inter Partes Review ("IPR") trial and that the PTAB properly employed the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") standard in construing the reviewed claims.

The challenged claims of the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 ("the '074 patent"), owned by Appellant Cuozzo Speed Technologies, concern a device having a GPS receiver and a "display controller" that is "integrally attached" to a vehicle's speedometer, displays the vehicle's current speed as well as the current speed limit, and indicates whether the current speed exceeds the limit. Slip Op. at 2-3. Garmin International, Inc. (who, as a result of settlement, did not participate on appeal) challenged independent claim 10 and dependent claims 14 and 17 in the first IPR petition filed at the PTAB. Id. at 2.

In granting Garmin's IPR petition for each challenged claim, the PTAB did not institute the specific grounds asserted in the petition for anticipation and obviousness of claim 10 or the specific grounds asserted for obviousness of claim 14. Id. at 3-4. However, the PTAB did institute the grounds asserted for obviousness of claim 17 in the petition for specific combinations of references, and—while Garmin did not specifically assert those combinations against claims 10 or 14—the PTAB also used those combinations in instituting grounds for obviousness of claims 10 and 14. Id. at 4.

The PTAB ultimately issued a final written decision in which it interpreted the term "integrally attached" pursuant to the BRI standard to mean "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity," denied Cuozzo's motion to amend claims 10, 14, and 17, and held that the claims were obvious over the combinations on which the PTAB decided to institute trial. Id. Cuozzo appealed, challenging (1) the PTAB's decision to institute the IPR based on grounds not specifically raised in the petition for claims 10 and 14, (2) the PTAB's decision to employ the BRI standard for claim construction, (3) the PTAB's ultimate decision on obviousness, and (4) the PTAB's denial of Cuozzo's motion to amend the claims. The PTO intervened on appeal.

Judge Dyk, writing for the majority, and joined by Judge Clevenger, first held that the Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction to review the PTAB's institution decision, even after the PTAB issues a final written decision. Id. at 5-6. The Court relied primarily on 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which is entitled "No appeal," and provides that "[t]he determination by the Director [of the PTO] whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." Id. at 5-6. The Court also noted that § 319 allows appeals to the Federal Circuit only from "the final written decision of the" PTAB. Id. at 6. The Court explained that § 314(d) thus "must be read to bar review of all institution decisions, even after the Board issues a final decision," because interlocutory decisions are already generally nonappealable. Id. at 7. The Court further noted that the AIA does not "limit the Board's authority at the final decision stage to the grounds alleged in the IPR petition" because it only requires "a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner and any new claim added." Id. (quoting § 318(a)). Thus, the Court stated, "[t]he fact that the petition was defective is irrelevant because a proper petition could have been drafted. . . . The failure to cite [the specific combination for claims 10 and 14] in the petition provides no ground for setting aside the final decision." Id. at 8.

The Federal Circuit majority went on to state that "mandamus may be available to challenge the PTO's decision to grant a petition to institute IPR after the Board's final decision in situations where the PTO has clearly and indisputably exceeded its authority"—"for example, on grounds of prior public use where the IPR statute permits petitions only on the basis of 'prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.'" Id. Though the Court stated its opinion did not "decide the question of whether the decision to institute review is reviewable by mandamus after the Board issues a final decision," it noted that, at a minimum, the mandamus requirement to show that there is "no other adequate means to attain the relief" desired would in this case have been "satisfied since review by appeal is unavailable." Id. at 9. However, "even if [the Court] were to treat [this] appeal as a request for mandamus," there was no "clear and indisputable right that preclude[d] institution of the IPR" on grounds not specifically asserted in the petition. Id. at 10.

For the second issue on appeal, the Federal Circuit held that it was appropriate for the PTAB to apply the BRI standard for claim construction. The Court explained that the PTO has applied, and courts have upheld the use of, the BRI standard for more than a century. Id. at 11-13. Accordingly, because "Congress is presumed to legislate against the background of existing law," the Court "conclude[d] that Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA." Id. at 13-16. Further, Congress granted the PTO rulemaking authority under § 316(a), which allows the PTO to prescribe regulations for IPR procedures. Id. at 11. And, even if Congress had not adopted the BRI standard, such that the rulemaking statute is ambiguous, the Court concluded that the PTO's interpretation of the statute to employ the BRI standard was permissible under the Chevron deference standard. Id. at 16-19. As to the PTAB's specific construction at issue for "integrally attached," the Court upheld it, agreeing that "it would 'be illogical to regard one unit as being "attached" to itself.'" Id. at 19-21.

The Federal Circuit further found no error in the PTAB's obviousness determination for the challenged claims, indicating that, on appeal, it was reviewing factual findings under a "substantial evidence" standard, and legal conclusions de novo. Id. at 21-22. The Court upheld the PTAB's factual findings that the disputed combination of references discloses the challenged claim limitations and that it would have been obvious to combine the references, one of which dealt with automatic devices and the other with manual devices, because "'[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.'" Id. at 22-24 (quoting Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The Court also noted that, in response to the obviousness challenge, Cuozzo did "not contend that any secondary considerations argue against a finding of obviousness." Id. at 24. Finally, the Court affirmed the PTAB's denial of Cuozzo's motion to amend its claims because the proposed amendments improperly broadened the claims in light of the upheld claim construction for "integrally attached." Id. at 24-26.

Judge Newman dissented from the majority, arguing that "several of the panel majority's rulings are contrary to the legislative purpose of the [AIA]," which was meant to provide "'quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.'" Slip. Op. Dissent at 1 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011)). Much of the dissent rests on the view that PTAB proceedings are meant to be "a surrogate for district court litigation," and thus should "apply the same legal and evidentiary standards as would apply in the district court." See id. at 1-11. Judge Newman did not dissent to the specific claim construction upheld by the majority or the majority's obviousness findings. Judge Newman was also, however, critical of the majority's holding that an institution decision is never appealable "even if contrary to law, even if material to the final appealed judgment," id. at 3, taking the view instead that "[t]he purpose of the 'nonappealable' provision apparently is to bar interlocutory proceedings and harassing filings by those seeking to immobilize the patent or exhaust the patentee," id. at 12.

Although decided in the context of an IPR, this first Federal Circuit opinion from the final disposition of a post-AIA validity proceeding addresses some fundamental questions that are pertinent to post-grant proceedings more generally, and both patent challengers and patent owners are likely to find in its pages significant guidance to employ in their PTAB strategies going forward.

A copy of the Federal Circuit's decision is available here.

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
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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