United States: USPTO Issues Scaled-Down Revised Rules For PTAB Trials

On April 1, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published final rules modifying some procedures used in AIA trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The revised rules arise from comments received from practitioners over the last two years that existing PTAB procedures put patent owners at a tactical disadvantage. The new rules make some notable changes to some PTAB trial procedures, but not to other procedures criticized by some AIA trial participants.


The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) created three new post-grant proceedings permitting competitors and other members of the public to challenge the validity of issued patents in trial-like administrative proceedings. One of the review procedures, Inter Partes Review ("IPR"), has proven to be unexpectedly popular with challengers, with nearly 4,200 petitions filed through the end of February 2016. In 2014, the USPTO invited feedback on improvements to the AIA trial process, including a June 2014 formal request for public input. The USPTO responded to public comments on March 27, 2015 by announcing new "quick-fix" improvements to the PTAB rules, including expanding page limits for some briefs. In addition, USPTO Director Michelle Lee announced that the USPTO was considering numerous other changes to AIA trial procedures, and invited further public comment on those proposals.

The USPTO now has had an opportunity to compile and evaluate all public comments on the proposed rules, and published final amended rules in the Federal Register. 81 Fed. Reg. 18750 (April 1, 2016).

Significant Rule Changes:

The USPTO has finalized a number of significant rule changes effective May 2, 2016 for all new proceedings commenced on or after that date, and proceedings pending on or after that date. These changes include:

  • Patent Owner's Preliminary Response. The USPTO has amended 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) to permit a patent owner to include testimonial evidence in a response to a petition for IPR, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply responding to the submission upon a showing of good cause. If the petition and preliminary response create a genuine issue of fact, the PTAB will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner "solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute" review. The USPTO will place "no negative inference on patent owner's choice to forgo an opportunity to file a preliminary response, [and] no negative inference will be drawn if a patent owner decides not to present new testimonial evidence with a preliminary response." 81 Fed. Reg. at 18755.
  • "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" Claim Construction. Prior to the current change, the AIA rules allowed use of Phillips-based claim construction analysis, rather than the USPTO's administrative "broadest reasonable interpretation" or "BRI" claim construction, only if the AIA challenge involved an already expired patent. The USPTO now has amended the AIA trial rules to expand the use of a Phillips-based claim construction analysis to situations where a patent will expire during an AIA challenge. According to the current rule change, either party may request the Phillips-based review by filing a motion certifying that the patent will expire within the pendency of the AIA challenge. The PTAB will then schedule a conference call with both parties to determine whether a Phillips-based claim construction is appropriate. This rule change comes amidst ongoing discussions that having a BRI standard for AIA challenges and Phillips-based claim construction analysis in federal court may result in disparate claim constructions for the same patent. In response to those practitioners critical of the two standards, the USPTO maintained that a patent owner has a reasonable opportunity to amend claims in AIA trial proceedings, and as a result BRI is the appropriate claim construction standard in most trials. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 25 in Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016), addressing the propriety of BRI review in AIA trials, and the outcome of that case may affect future PTAB claim construction practices.
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11-Type Certifications. The USPTO has amended 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 to require practitioners to include a certification consistent with Rule 11 on papers filed with the PTAB. The PTAB is authorized to impose sanctions for violation of the rule.

Changes Considered, But Not Implemented:

One notable aspect of the finalized USPTO rules is what they do not cover. In her March 27, 2015 blog post, Director Lee published a wide range of potentially significant procedural changes. For various reasons, however, the USPTO ultimately decided not to revise the rules more extensively at this time, generally preferring to allow the PTAB to consider the issues on a case-by-case basis.

  • "Single-Judge Pilot Program." The USPTO decided not to go forward with a proposed pilot program in which a single PTAB judge would determine whether to institute a trial at the petition stage of proceedings. Under the proposal, if a trial was initiated, two additional judges would be added to the panel hearing the case on the merits. The proposal was suggested to mitigate the perception that a PTAB panel that decides to institute review is predisposed to cancelling claims on the merits.
  • Reform of Rules Governing Claim Amendments. After considerable discussion, the USPTO declined to revise the current procedures for amending claims during the AIA trial, despite the fact that motions to amend are rarely granted. The USPTO reiterated that the PTAB panel is not equipped to examine the patentability of proposed amended claims, and thus amended claims automatically become part of the patent under review. As a result, the current rules requiring a patent owner to demonstrate that a proposed amended claim is patentable over the prior art "account[s] for the absence of an independent examination by the Office where a prior art search is performed as would be done during prosecution of a patent application, reexamination, or reissue." 81 Fed. Reg. at 18754.
  • Expanded Availability of Discovery. The USPTO declined to modify the current relatively restrictive standard for allowing discovery. See Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012–00001, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26) (informative). The USPTO noted that requests for discovery would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • Other Procedural Reforms. The final rules do not include new rules governing how the PTAB should process multiple proceedings involving the same patent, and the use of live testimony at trial. In both instances, the USPTO noted that PTAB panels would continue to manage those issues on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, the USPTO noted that it intends to continue to respond to public comments and modify PTAB procedures in the future. "The Office anticipates that it will continue to refine the rules governing AIA trials to continue to ensure fairness and efficiency while meeting all congressional mandates. Therefore, the Office continues to encourage comments concerning how the rules may be refined to achieve this goal." 81 Fed. Reg. at 18751.

Practical Significance:

Perhaps the most significant rule change in the USPTO's current final rule changes is the ability of patent owners to submit testimonial evidence, such as expert declarations, in their preliminary response to a petition for AIA review. Since a significant percentage of initiated challenges result in a final decision that some or all of the challenged claims are unpatentable, the patent owner's best opportunity for avoiding an adverse result is to avoid institution of review. The opportunity to submit testimonial evidence, particularly expert testimony, may be helpful in avoiding institution of review in some cases. Even with the possibility of submitting testimony, however, the rules require the PTAB to view factual disputes at the institution stage in a light most favorable to the petitioner. This procedural posture may result in AIA trials even if the patent owner submits testimony and other evidence to rebut the factual basis of a petition.

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
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
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