United States: Cuozzo And Dome Patent: Unpacking Claim Construction Standards And Burdens Of Proof In Patentability And Validity Analyses

On January 15, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the patent case Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,1 an appeal of the Federal Circuit decision In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC.2 In the Cuozzo decision, the Federal Circuit decided the first appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling.3 Among the holdings of this case was the determination that the PTAB did not err in construing Cuozzo's claims using the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (BRI) standard. The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari raises the question of whether the Court might disagree with the Federal Circuit and hold that the "plain and ordinary meaning" (POM) standard4 used by district courts in construing patent claims is the standard that should be applied by the PTAB in post-grant challenges under the America Invents Act (AIA).

For patentees, the BRI standard5 can result in a broader interpretation of claims, which renders them more vulnerable to prior art attacks. While BRI is theoretically the standard applied by examiners during prosecution, there is no explicit and affirmative record of how claims are construed by the examiner. How the claims—which are very frequently amended during prosecution—are actually construed is arrived at inferentially through analysis of the prosecution history. In contrast, where claim construction is in dispute in an AIA post-grant proceeding, the PTAB will issue a preliminary claim construction in its determination of whether to institute a trial.6 And district courts issue Markman orders on claim construction.7 The patent prosecutor involved in ex parte prosecution, by contrast, is involved in a dance with the patent examiner that is supposed to follow the rules of BRI. But the "elephant in the room" is the enormous success rate of AIA post-grant challenges, showing that 87% of all inter partes reviews (IPRs) result in some or all of a challenged patent's claims being cancelled. If the examination corps at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the PTAB are each applying the same BRI standard, then this figure seems askew. It is important to note that there are factors other than claim construction in play, such as examiner error in allowing claims or the availability of new and superior prior art.

If the Supreme Court holds that BRI is the appropriate standard, then patent prosecutors can look forward perhaps to a growing body of decisions by the PTAB to help establish claim construction principles for the USPTO examination corps, rendering claim construction less ad hoc and less susceptible to an individual examiner's personal style. If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court holds that the POM standard applies, then the experience of the district courts in applying Markman over the past two decades will help lead the PTAB toward more balanced statistics.

While patent prosecutors should be aware of how their claims will be interpreted by the examiner and the PTAB when drafting them, there is little that can be prepared for aside from writing clear specifications and claims, making clear arguments, and adhering—to the extent possible—to principles of compact prosecution. In fact, as courts and the PTAB are increasingly admitting, there would be very little difference in the construction under either standard.

Another principle that affects PTAB trial statistics is the burden of proof that falls on the petitioner, as compared to the burden falling on a district court litigant alleging invalidity of an issued U.S. patent. The PTAB uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard to show the unpatentability of a claim, which amounts to just slightly more than half of the evidence. District courts, because a patent is presumed valid,8 require a showing of invalidity by "clear and convincing" evidence, which is a much higher burden. Obviously, the PTAB standard is much easier to meet for petitioners than the clear and convincing standard in trial courts. But questions have arisen in the context of appeals of USPTO (including PTAB) decisions to the Federal Circuit whether challenges of issued patents at the USPTO should require clear and convincing proofs of invalidity.

The recent case of Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee9 is illustrative. The patentee, who received an adverse decision in ex parte reexamination, filed suit against the USPTO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 35 U.S.C. §§ 145 and 306, a venue that was available for such challenges at the time.10 The district court upheld the USPTO in rejecting Dome's claims as obvious, and Dome then appealed to the Federal Circuit. Dome argued that the district court erred by not requiring the USPTO to use the clear and convincing standard of proof because the action concerned patent claims already issued by the USPTO. The district court disagreed and the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's decision. At the crux of the holding was the fact that the resumption of validity only attaches to an invalidity defense raised to a charge of infringement. Quoting In re Etter, the court held that "[a]n examiner is not attacking the validity of a patent, but is conducting a subjective examination of claims in the light of prior art."11

The holding in Dome Patent illustrates that the USPTO needs to demonstrate obviousness only by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by clear and convincing evidence, because USPTO actions do not involve a defense to a charge of infringement necessary to trigger presumption of validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 and the attendant "clear and convincing evidence" standard for an invalidity defense.

The Supreme Court's decision in Cuozzo will not reach or alter the standard of proof needed to prove invalidity at the USPTO, as exemplified in Dome Patent. Thus, challengers will always find a relative advantage in USPTO proceedings compared to district court litigation. Patent prosecutors can help to build a case toward this standard of proof by providing clear, consistent, and accurate disclosure and arguments during prosecution.

Currently, PTAB challenges enjoy a lower standard of proof and a broader claim construction standard that makes it more attractive to challengers. Perhaps the Supreme Court will level the claim construction playing field in Cuozzo, but no matter what the outcome, patent prosecutors mindful of these concepts can help to shore up a patent against challenges that statistically have greatly favored petitioners.


1 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, cert. granted (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016).

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

3 The Cuozzo IPR petition, Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 1 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2012), was the first IPR petition ever granted by the PTAB under the America Invents Act. See id., Paper 15 at 26-27 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013).

4 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

5 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.200(b), 42.300(b) (2012).

6 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(c), 324(d); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.200(b), 42.300(b).

7 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

8 35 U.S.C. § 282.

9 No. 2014-1673 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2015).

10 As an alternative to appeal to the Federal Circuit, reexaminations filed before November 29, 1999 could file suit against the USPTO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside the USPTO's decision. This provision was removed by the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999).

11 Dome Patent, slip op. at 9-10 (quoting In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857-58 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

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
2 Nov 2017, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

Join us for a two-part webinar series exploring recent developments in machine learning and other technologies that have greatly advanced artificial intelligence (AI) since its origins more than 50 years ago.

9 Nov 2017, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan attorneys Adriana Burgy, Chris Johns, and Kai Rajan will discuss the Examiner Count System and provide strategies for interacting with examiners.

15 Nov 2017, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the second annual Digital Media & IP Forum, hosted by World Congress.

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.