United States: U.S. Patent And Trademark Office Announces Proposed Changes To AIA Proceedings

On August 19, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Office") presented proposed amendments to the rules governing trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, transitional post-grant review for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") in a Federal Register Notice ("Notice").1 The proposed rule amendments address a variety of subjects from claim construction to new Rule 11-type certification requirements. Notably, the proposed rule amendments would create a more robust preliminary stage, where patent owners can present expert testimony and petitioners can request to file replies before the Office's institution decision.

Along with the proposed rule amendments, the Office provided extensive responses to comments from the public. In its responses, the Office concluded that its current rules generally provide a workable framework to administer AIA proceedings. The Office declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Taken together, the proposed rule amendments and responses to comments suggest that the Office has attempted to propose new rules that do not overly favor either petitioners or patent owners, while rejecting calls to reinvent the program.


In 2014, the Office solicited feedback on AIA proceedings. The Office received comments from bar associations, corporations, law firms, and individuals, and addressed those comments in two rounds of rule changes. The first round of changes in May 2015 made some "quick fixes," which are now final. In yesterday's Notice, the Office addressed the remaining comments and opened a 60-day window for additional comments.


The current rules define the "preliminary proceeding" as beginning "with the filing of a petition for instituting a trial" and ending "with a written decision as to whether a trial will be instituted." 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Currently, this stage permits only the petitioner to submit expert testimony before the Board's institution decision.

The proposed rule amendments would allow the patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response as well. Although this new rule would favor patent owners, the Office further proposed: (1) resolving any material factual dispute in favor of the petitioner for the purposes of institution and (2) allowing the petitioner to seek leave to file a reply to a preliminary response supported by a declaration. The Office also appeared to open the door to the possible cross-examination of the patent owner's expert before institution.

If the Office's proposed rule amendments are adopted, the right of the patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response, coupled with the right of the petitioner to request a reply and even cross-examine the patent owner's expert—all before institution—suggest a more robust preliminary stage.

Adding further weight to the preliminary stage is the Office's proposal to change the page limits of the petition and preliminary response from 60 pages to 14,000 words for inter partes review. (A similar change is proposed for post-grant review.) Such a change would permit the use of more figures and generally longer, more detailed presentations by both parties at the preliminary stage.


The issue of the appropriate standard for claim construction in AIA proceedings has been a hot topic this summer, including the Federal Circuit's opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (concluding that Congress implicitly approved broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting AIA).2 In yesterday's Notice, the Office held firm to its broadest reasonable interpretation standard for patent claims that remain unexpired through trial. For patents that will expire before the anticipated end of the AIA proceeding, the Office proposed that the claim construction standard should be that of Phillips v. AWH Corp.,3 because the claims cannot be amended. Interestingly, the Office invited comments on any workable solution for allowing a patent owner to "opt in" to the Phillips standard by foregoing the right to amend. The Office also invited comments on whether it should consider briefing submitted after the petition is filed, but before the preliminary response, regarding what standard should be applied. These invitations suggest that, once again, the preliminary stage could see more advocacy as the parties jostle to define the appropriate claim construction standard.


Another hot AIA topic this summer has been the patent owner's right to amend. Such motions have been difficult so far, in part because the Board has required that the patent owner establish the patentability of the amended claims over both the "prior art of record" and "prior art known to the patent owner." Although motions to amend have rarely been granted, the Office refused to change the standards governing such motions in its Notice.

The Office, however, clarified the scope of the prior art that amended claims must overcome, by reference to the Board's decision in MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015- 00040, slip op. at 1–3 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) (Paper 42). As set forth in MasterImage 3D, the "prior art of record" would encompass: (a) material art in the prosecution history of the patent; (b) material art of record in the concurrent proceeding, including art on which the Board did not institute review; and (c) material art of record in any other proceeding before the Office involving the patent. As further indicated in MasterImage 3D, the "prior art known to the patent owner" would consist of prior art that the patent owner makes of record in the current proceeding pursuant to its duty of candor and good faith. The Office also clarified that the Board "must consider" all motions to amend, and thus there exists no burden of persuasion to file such a motion. In short, the Notice does not depart from the Office's current course as to motions to amend in an AIA proceeding.


The success of inter partes reviews has led to situations where a patent owner faces serial petitions—sometimes by the same petitioner. In the Notice, the Office sought to address circumstances under which a petition for an AIA proceeding should be rejected because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office in an earlier-filed petition. The Office refused to adopt a rigid "one and done" rule, in which duplicative petitions are denied. Rather, the Office noted that the current rules and case law provide the Board with broad discretion to take all factors into account and to balance the interests of one or more petitioners, who seek to present new prior art and arguments in later-filed petitions, against the patent owner's interest in preventing harassment that takes the form of repetitive, serial petitions that challenge the same patent claims. The Office pointed to decisions in which the Board has used its broad discretion to deny petitions that raised challenges based on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments as a prior petition, especially where the same petitioner filed the later petition.


In the Notice, the Office also addressed several other practices governing AIA proceedings. As with the discussion of serial petitions above, the Office declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the Board's discretion.

  • Additional discovery. The proposed rule amendments did not include any change to the standards on discovery, which is currently governed by Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 6–7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26). The Office indicated that the Board would continue to apply the Garmin factors. The Office also declined to change the rules regarding the discovery of evidence of non-obviousness in the possession of the petitioner, finding that the Garmin factors provided sufficient guidance as to how to handle requests for additional discovery.
  • Real Party-in-Interest. The Office proposed to permit a patent owner to raise a real party-in-interest or privity challenge at any time during a trial proceeding. But with respect to a late challenge that reasonably could have been raised earlier in the proceeding, the Office proposed to consider the impact of such a delay on a case-by-case basis, taking into account whether the delay is unwarranted or prejudicial. The Office also clarified that the burden of proof on the issue of standing rests with the petitioner. With respect to other real party-in-interest or privity issues raised by the comments, the Office declined to make any changes.
  • Multiple Proceedings. The Office declined to change its practices and rules governing the management of multiple proceedings (e.g., an AIA trial, reexamination proceeding, or reissue proceeding) involving the same patents, including whether these proceedings should be coordinated, stayed, transferred, consolidated, or terminated in favor of another. The Office instead opted for giving the Board discretion in making these determinations on a case-by-case basis.
  • Oral Hearing. The Office appeared to invite more live testimony at the hearing, and clarified that such testimony would become part of the record. The Office also confirmed that it would continue its practice of considering requests for live testimony on a case-by-case basis, and that the format of the live testimony would be left to the discretion of the Board.
  • Word Counts/Page Limits. The Office proposed to change the limits on the length of the petition and preliminary response (as discussed above), as well as for the patent owner's response and petitioner's reply brief. Specifically, the Office proposed using word counts instead of page limits. As a result, the Office also proposed allowing a petitioner to present attorney argument in the form of claim charts. Page limits would continue to be used for all other briefs.
  • Pilot Program. The Office also proposed seeking comments on a pilot program in which one administrative patent judge would be designated to determine whether to institute a proceeding and two additional judges would be assigned if trial is instituted.
  • Rule 11 Certification. The Office proposed requiring a Rule 11-type certification for all papers filed with the Board, including a provision for sanctions for noncompliance. The proposed rules implement a more explicit duty of candor and good faith for all persons practicing before the Board. In her blog post, Office Director Michelle Lee noted that this Rule 11-like sanction would "give the [Office] a more robust means with which to police misconduct."4


The Office's Notice presents proposed rule amendments and responses to comments for AIA proceedings, and opens a 60-day window for additional comments by the public. Interested parties may offer submissions by October 19, 2015. Most of the proposed changes would affect both sides, such as the word count limits and Rule 11 certification. And even proposed modifications that seem to favor one party are tempered with protections for the other party. For example, although the Office proposed allowing a patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response, it also provided the petitioner with the ability to request a reply to the preliminary response. Apart from such proposed rule amendments, the Office found that many of its current rules provide a workable framework to administer AIA proceedings and declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the Board's discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. In short, the Office considers the AIA proceedings to be highly successful, and is thus reluctant to revamp them at this stage.


1 Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-20227.pdf.

2 No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015).

3 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

4 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_update_proposed_changes_to.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.