United States: In Re Cuozzo: The Federal Circuit Affirms The PTAB's Finding Of Unpatentability

Last Updated: March 18 2015
Article by Fabian M. Koenigbauer

The first Federal Circuit decision from an appeal of a Final Written Decision in an Inter Partes review (IPR) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on all grounds. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). The decision clarifies several issues affecting AIA Trials:

  • PTAB decisions on whether to institute IPR are non-appealable;
  • Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in IPR; and
  • A motion to amend the patent in an IPR may not introduce substitute claims that "would encompass any apparatus or claim that would not have been covered by the original claims."

Background

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc. (Cuozzo) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (the '074 patent), titled "Speed limit indicator and method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit." Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (collectively, Garmin) petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14, and 17 of the '074 patent.1 Garmin filed the petition on September 16, 2012, the first day on which IPR became available, and the resulting IPR was the first IPR ever instituted.2 The PTAB instituted IPR on all of the challenged claims, and ultimately determined the claims to be unpatentable as obvious. The PTAB also denied Cuozzo's motion to amend the patent by substituting new claims 21 to 23 in place of the challenged claims.3

Decisions on Whether to Institute are Non-Appealable

On appeal, the Federal Circuit confirmed that a decision to institute an IPR is non-appealable. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that "a determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." Having previously held that § 314(d) precludes an interlocutory review of the Director's determination to institute an IPR, the Federal Circuit "conclude[d] that § 314(d) prohibits review of the decision to institute IPR even after a final decision."4 Thus, the Federal Circuit "lack[s] jurisdiction to review the PTO's decision to institute IPR." The court did not decide whether mandamus review is available. Nevertheless, the court noted that the circumstances in In re Cuozzo would not warrant such a review.5

Thus, the decision underscores the importance of the petition for IPR and the patent owner's response to the petition. If the petition is denied, it is likely that the petitioner may not get another bite at the apple. Not only may a petitioner have missed the one-year statutory deadline for filing, there are also several informative PTAB decisions that weigh heavily against being able to reassert the same or related grounds of invalidity in a petition.

The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation is the Correct Standard

The Federal Circuit also confirmed that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard adopted by the PTO governs AIA trials.6 To reach that conclusion, the Court considered the history of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the congressional intent behind the inter partes review, and the Chevron factors.

The Federal Circuit applies the BRI "in every PTO proceeding involving unexpired patents."7 The policy behind the BRI is that "[a]pplic[ation of] the broadest reasonable interpretation standard 'reduce[s] the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.'"8 The Court found no indication that the AIA changed this standard for post-grant proceedings. While Congress did not specify that the BRI is to govern, the court "inferred that Congress implicitly applied the existing rule of adopting the broadest reasonable construction."9 The Court noted that, notwithstanding the limited opportunity to amend claims, IPRs are like other USPTO proceedings in that they allow for amendments.10 The Court also considered the BRI standard under the Chevron factors and determined that the standard was properly adopted.11 Thus, the Federal Circuit's decision affirmed that in an IPR, claims are to be given broader interpretation than the "ordinary and customary meaning" to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as applied at the district court under Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

On the Merits

Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision on all grounds: (1) claim construction; (2) obviousness; and (3) denial of motion to amend. Since there was no issue as to extrinsic evidence, claim construction was reviewed de novo.12The Court determined that the PTAB correctly interpreted the claims based on the intrinsic evidence.13 Moreover, the PTAB also correctly decided that the challenged claims were obvious.14

A Substitute Claim May Not Encompass any Apparatus or Claim That Would Not Have Been Covered by the Original Claims

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the PTAB's denial of Cuozzo's motion to amend its patent claims. Specifically, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly denied Cuozzo's motion to amend because the substitute claims would have enlarged the patent's scope.15 The statute and PTO's regulation governing rules to amend prohibit amendments that would broaden claim scope.16 However, neither the statute nor the PTO's regulation specifies how to decide whether an amendment is broadening. The Federal Circuit determined that an assessment as to broadening should be based on the same test used in reissues and reexaminations.17 Specifically, "a claim 'is broader in scope than the original claim if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus which would not have infringed the original patent.'"18 Since Cuozzo's proposed substitute claims would encompass a single-LCD embodiment, which was not encompassed by the original claims, the motion to amend was properly denied for introducing a broadening amendment.19 Thus, in a motion to amend, a patentee can only introduce a substitute claim that encompasses an apparatus or claim that would have been covered by the original claims.

The Dissent – the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Defeats the Congressional Intent of AIA Trials

Circuit Judge Newman dissented from the majority opinion. In her dissent, Judge Newman cited a House Report, which states that "[t]he intent of the post-grant review process is to enable early challenges to patents."20 Judge Newman reasoned that "[t]o implement the intent of the America Invents Act, the administrative judges of the PTAB must apply the same procedural and substantive law as the district court."21 As such, "the procedures whereby claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation instead of their correct constructions defeats the purpose of Inter Partes Review as a surrogate for district court litigation."22 Judge Newman also noted that § 314(d) "requires thoughtful adjustment to the legislative purpose, not heavy handed foreclosure of all review of any anything related to the petition."23

Applicability to Post-Grant Reviews and Covered Business Method Reviews

The In re Cuozzo decision only applies to IPRs. Nevertheless, because of similarities in the statutory language and rules, the decision may be equally applicable to Post Grant Reviews (PGRs) and Covered Business Method Reviews (CBMs). For example, the rationale for the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is equally applicable to PGRs and CBMs. In PGRs, similar to IPRs, the statute also provides that decision as to "whether to institute a post-grant review...shall be final and non-appealable."24 The AIA also provides that decisions to institute a CBM are also final and non-appealable.25 Thus, since the relevant statutes for CBMs and PGRs provide that decisions to institute are final and non-appealable, it is likely that a court would follow the reasoning of In re Cuozzo and not review a challenge on a decision to institute in a CBM or PGR. In addition, like IPRs, CBMs and PGRs contain similar statutory language and regulations that prohibit the introduction of broadening claims in a motion to amend.26 Thus, it would appear that the In re Cuozzo test for whether a claim amendment is broadening is equally applicable to CBMs and PGRs.

Conclusion

While the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Cuozzo provides some guidance as to the conduct of IPRs, the full import of the decision has yet to play out. Cuozzo may still petition the Federal Circuit for en banc review, particularly given Judge Newman's dissent, and should that fail, Cuozzo may petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari. Venable will continue monitoring the development of this case and other IPR-related developments.

Footnotes

[1] In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., 2014-1301, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015).

[2] See IPR2012-0001.

[3] In re Cuozzo, slip op at 2.

[4] Id. at 6.

[5] Id. at 10.

[6] Id. at 19.

[7] Id. at 16.

[8] Id. at 13 (quoting In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1015 (CCPA 1981)).

[9] Id. at 14.

[10] Id. at 16.

[11] Id. at 19.

[12] Id. at 19 (relying on Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015)).

[13] Id. at 20-21.

[14] Id. at 21-24.

[15] Id. at 24.

[16] 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii).

[17] In re Cuozzo, slip op. at 25.

[18] Id. at 25 (quoting Tillotson, Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

[19] Id. at 25.

[20] In re Cuozzo, dissent at 5 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 at 46 (2011)).

[21] Id. at 6.

[22] Id. at 11.

[23] Id. at 13.

[24] 35 U.S.C. § 324(e); compare 35 U.S.C. § 315(d).

[25] See Leahy Smith America Invents Act, H.R. 1249 at Section 18, 112th Cong. (2011).

[26] See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221, 42.300.

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.

Authors
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
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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