United States: Potential Havoc At The PTAB

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on issues that could wreak havoc with pending patent cases

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granted certiorari to consider two hotly contested issues that may have a very strong impact on inter partes reviews (IPR)1 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The first issue centers on the appropriate claim construction standard to be used in AIA trials, specifically: Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) erred in holding that, in IPR proceedings, the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) rather than their plain and ordinary meaning.

The second issue involves judicial review of final and non-appealable decisions, specifically: Whether the CAFC erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board's decision whether to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable.2

A decision in the affirmative could wreak havoc for those parties with AIA trials pending at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or appeals pending before the CAFC. The SCOTUS decision could result in expensive rebriefing and reversals, which may lead some to seek a legislative remedy to avoid this tumult.


When Congress enacted the AIA, it did not expressly define the claim construction standard to be used for AIA trials, but delegated to the USPTO broad authority to "prescribe regulations ... establishing and governing inter partes review."3 The USPTO decided to use BRI for several reasons. First, Congress required the PTAB to decide "patentability,"4 not validity as district courts do, so the USPTO chose to use the same claim construction standard that it uses in other proceedings deciding patentability. Second, the USPTO wanted to maintain its 30-year precedent of claim interpretation across multiple related or merged proceedings (such as reexaminations and reissues). Third, the patent owner may motion to amend claims during AIA trials. The use of BRI in AIA trials has been very controversial, however. Critics argue that the BRI standard is not justified because the PTAB, which hears AIA trials, denies the vast majority of motions to amend and that the distinction between patentability and invalidity has led the PTAB to cancel claims that a district court could have upheld. District courts determine validity based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.5 This can be a more narrow interpretation than the BRI used by the PTAB. In addition, district courts, unlike the PTAB, presume that claims are valid, which makes it more difficult for accused infringers to succeed. Thus, the burdens to demonstrate invalidity in a district court are greater than those to demonstrate unpatentability in the PTAB.

Many stakeholders, largely led by the chemical and life sciences industries, have been lobbying for the PTAB to use the plain and ordinary meaning standard for unexpired patents, and they might get it. These stakeholders are concerned that AIA trials reduce the value of their patents, as the USPTO could cancel a patent that a district court, with its higher burdens, could uphold. In contrast, others argue that the ability to amend, and the estoppel and time-bar provisions sufficiently protect patent owners.

BRI or plain and ordinary meaning?

A panel of the CAFC6 held that the USPTO may use the BRI standard in AIA trials. However, the CAFC's 6-5 decision to deny en banc review provoked strong dissents stating that Congress intended AIA trials to be an alternative to district court litigation, and therefore higher district court standards should apply. There are strong opinions and detailed arguments on both sides that are beyond the scope of this alert, which focuses on the ramifications of a reversal of Cuozzo.

The appropriate claim construction standard has significant implications for planning and conducting AIA trials. If an AIA trial has reached finality, i.e., all appeals have been exhausted, then the case is likely over. If an AIA trial is pending at any stage, however, the petitioner and patent owner should plan for contingencies, such as having to rebrief claim construction. Petitioners drafting petitions for an AIA trial might consider a strategy of proposing two constructions: one under BRI and the other under the plain ordinary meaning. In this way, the petitioner might preempt having to reargue the issues using a different construction standard. However, this puts additional pressure on condensing arguments within the page limits and might limit options for changing constructions in the district court. Petitioners and patent owners who are already in AIA trials might consider adding arguments about how the plain and ordinary meaning might differ, or not differ, from the BRI.

Patent owner-appellants should also appeal whether the PTAB used the correct claim construction standard and wait for the decision from the SCOTUS. Petitioner-appellants should seek a final decision as soon as possible to avoid having the case remanded to the PTAB. The CAFC recently did just that when a patent expired (which requires using the plain and ordinary meaning) between a decision from the PTAB and a decision from the CAFC.7 Therefore, the PTAB's caseload could increase dramatically if it faces remands requiring re-doing claim construction on all AIA trials with non-final appeals.

Besides remediating the problem while in an AIA trial, parties can also be proactive and file amicus briefs. Assuming that the SCOTUS reverses the CAFC, Congress could act by passing legislation to clarify retroactively that the PTAB's use of BRI was correct. Note that Congress has considered several reform bills that establish the plain and ordinary meaning as the standard for AIA trials; though none are close to passing, at least partially due to opposition to changing the standard. Parties seeking congressional action should begin thinking about specific legislative proposals now so that they will be ready when the SCOTUS decides the issue this summer. Congress is unlikely to take an interest in the issue until it becomes choate.

Judicial review of final, non-appealable decisions?

On the second issue, the CAFC would not review the PTAB's decision on institution because it is final and non-appealable. Since Cuozzo, the CAFC has consistently held that courts cannot review decisions on institution via appeal or mandamus.8 This holding, however, conflicts with those limited cases in which the CAFC has held that decisions on institution are appealable for the sole issue of determining whether patents are CBM-eligible.9

There is a strong possibility that the SCOTUS will determine that decisions on institution are subject to some form of judicial review, given its recent decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, which mandates a "strong presumption" favoring review of agency action.10 Therefore, the SCOTUS will likely allow for some review of administrative action, such as when the agency exceeds its statutory authority.


Whatever the SCOTUS may decide on either issue, the court's decision will have a significant impact on AIA trials. Amicus briefs are likely due between late February to early April, depending on who the brief supports and filing dates, so interested parties should retain counsel now to prepare them. Several professional organizations, including the Intellectual Property Owner's Association (IPO) and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will likely file amicus briefs in support of replacing the current BRI claim construction standard with the plain and ordinary meaning. Many non-life-sciences companies, on the other hand, favor continuing to use the BRI. Therefore, there are likely to be several amicus briefs with strong views on both sides of these issues.


1 The decision should also affect post-grant reviews (PGRs) and reviews for covered business methods (CBMs). The America Invents Act (AIA) established IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs, known collectively as AIA trials.

2 Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, Docket No. 15-446.

3 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4).

4 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).

5 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

6 In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015, revised Jul. 8, 2015).

7 Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, et al. v. Puget Bioventures, LLC, appeal no. 2015-1468 (Jan. 14, 2016).

8 See e.g., St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc., v. Volcano Corp., 749 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Sightsound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., Slip Op., appeal nos. 2015-1159 and 2015-1160 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

9 Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

10 135 S. Ct. 1645, 1651 (2015); see also, Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986).

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

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.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Dentons is delighted to support a global IT services and consulting firm Miratech as an event host partner at their annual conference called M-Force18 New York on September 27th. The event will be held at Dentons New York office in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, opposite Rockefeller Center.

2 Oct 2018, Seminar, Dallas, United States

We are pleased to offer a program of five sessions designed specifically for in-house counsel. Topics will include:

  • In-house corporate ethical issues
  • What recent Supreme Court decisions mean for business
  • Keeping lawyers out of your benefit plans
  • Litigation tactics for in-house counsel
  • Employment issues in the age of #MeToo
In association with
Related Topics
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