United States: Supreme Court Upholds Federal Circuit's Cuozzo Decision

PTAB IPR Institution Decisions Not Appealable; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Proper

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, affirming the Federal Circuit's rulings that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's ("PTO") Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("PTAB") decision whether to institute Inter Partes Review ("IPR") proceedings is judicially unreviewable, and that the PTAB can apply the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") claim construction standard in IPR proceedings.

The PTAB had instituted an IPR proceeding against certain claims of a patent owned by Cuozzo on obviousness grounds not explicitly stated in the IPR petition. The PTAB also employed the BRI standard in its final written decision invalidating all claims at issue. On appeal from the PTAB, the Federal Circuit relied primarily on 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), the "No Appeal" provision. The Federal Circuit majority held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the PTAB's decision to institute on grounds not explicitly stated, even when appealed after the PTAB issued its final written decision. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that it was appropriate for the PTAB to apply the BRI standard for claim construction, noting, inter alia, that the PTO has applied, and courts have upheld the use of, the BRI standard for more than a century.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on these two issues, and in its decision specifically considered whether § 314(d) "bars a court from considering whether the Patent Office wrongly 'determin[ed] . . . to institute an inter partes review' when it did so on grounds not specifically mentioned in a third party's review request," and whether Congress "authorize[d] the Patent Office to issue a regulation stating that the agency, in inter partes review, 'shall [construe a patent claim according to] its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.'" Slip Op. at 1-2 (citations omitted, last alteration original). In affirming the Federal Circuit, Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, which was unanimous as to the BRI issue. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Alito—joined by Justice Sotomayor—dissented on the reviewability of institution decisions issue.

The Supreme Court held that the "final and nonappealable" language of § 314(d) renders judicial review unavailable. Id. at 7. The majority rejected Cuozzo's argument regarding a related statutory section, § 312, which states that petitions must be pleaded "with particularity." According to the Supreme Court, the "'No Appeal' provision's language must, at the least, forbid an appeal that attacks a 'determination . . . whether to institute review by raising this kind of legal question and little more." Id. at 7-8. The majority also rejected the dissent's contention that § 314(d) only precludes interlocutory appeals of institution decisions because "[t]he Administrative Procedure Act already limits review to final agency decisions," and the provision would thus be superfluous. Id. at 9. The majority further explained, contrary to the dissent's view, that the statutory provision overcomes by clear and convincing evidence the strong presumption of judicial reviewability, noting that "[t]he text of the 'No Appeal' provision, along with its place in the overall statutory scheme, its role alongside the Administrative Procedure Act, the prior interpretation of similar patent statutes, and Congress' purpose in crafting inter partes review, all point in favor of precluding review of the Patent Office's institution decisions." Id. at 10-11. Finally, the majority opinion indicated that its holding applies "where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to initiate inter partes review," leaving open questions of "the precise effect of § 314(d) on appeals that implicate constitutional questions, that depend on other less closely related statutes, or that present other questions of interpretation that reach, in terms of scope and impact, well beyond 'this section.'" Id. at 11. Here, "Cuozzo's claim that Garmin's petition was not pleaded 'with particularity' under § 312 [was] little more than a challenge to the Patent Office's conclusion, under § 314(a), that the 'information presented in the petition' warranted review." Id. at 12

As to the BRI issue, the unanimous opinion held that § 316(a)(4), which "grants the Patent Office authority to issue 'regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter," gives the PTO authority to issue regulations imposing usage of the BRI. Id. at 12-14. According to the Supreme Court, this notion is not defeated by the alleged "purpose of inter partes review" to be an alternative to district court litigation because "inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding." Id. at 15. Furthermore, the BRI "regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office," which "encourages the applicant to draft [claims] narrowly," has been used by the PTO "for more than 100 years," and is "not unfair to the patent holder in any obvious way," despite the statistically low success rates for motions to amend in IPR proceedings. Id. at 17-19. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Cuozzo's contention regarding potential inconsistent results between the PTAB and district courts, explaining that BRI is internally consistent with other PTO proceedings, and that the "different evidentiary burdens [between IPRs and district court proceedings] mean that the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress' regulatory design." Id. at 19-20.

The Supreme Court's decision gives important practical guidance to both patent owners and patent challengers. The majority's decision that § 314(d) generally bars judicial review of the PTAB's institution decisions, at least on grounds closely tied to the application and interpretation of the statutes concerning institution, is likely to give greater certainty on judicial reviewability—but, as both the majority and dissent suggest, future cases are likely to raise issues about what challenges (such as constitutional issues, or questions whose scope and impact reach "well beyond" this section) may still be reviewable by the courts. Furthermore, while the choice of claim construction standards might not lead to a different result in many cases, the Supreme Court's decision resolves the hotly contested BRI question that, had it come out differently, might have required further review of most issued PTAB Final Written Decisions.

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
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 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