United States: Finding Consistency Amongst Different Claim Construction Standards

Last Updated: July 22 2016
Article by Miyoung Shin and Peter Lee

During oral arguments in the closely watched Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc. v. Lee, the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides describing the merits and consequences of allowing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.[1]

While recognizing the patent owner's arguments about the potential for added confusion and inconsistent results that could be caused by hewing to a BRI standard in IPRs versus an ordinary meaning standard in district court, i.e., the Phillips standard,[2] the Supreme Court's highly anticipated ruling affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's rule-making authority to construe claims under the BRI standard in an IPR.

In light of all the attention given to Cuozzo, it is instructive to take a closer look at how the application of the two standards have played out historically, and decide what impact operating under the two standards may have in practice.

Overlap Between BRI and Phillips

Despite the recognized differences between the two claim construction standards, both practitioners and the courts agree that overlap exists between the BRI and Philips standards.

The PTO has long held rules stating: "Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning (ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art), unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification,"[3] and that "it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim."[4]

The Philips standard states that the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention."[5] The Philips standard further states that to ascertain the meaning of a claim term, "the court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean."[6] Under the Philips standard, those sources include "the words of the claim themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art."[7]

When comparing the two standards, it becomes clear that both the BRI and Philips standards strive to consider the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term which is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged this overlap between BRI and Phillips by observing "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower."[8] (Emphasis added).

The Federal Circuit has supported this understanding that the BRI standard starts with the plain meaning of claim terms. In Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O, the Federal Circuit reversed an IPR final written decision by the PTAB based on finding an improper application of the BRI standard. Here, the Federal Circuit found it improper for the PTAB to disregard facially clear claim terms and turn immediately to the specification for claim construction. The Federal Circuit provided that even under BRI, "[w]e start with the claim language – which has a meaning that can only be called plain."[9] In faulting the PTAB for immediately relying on the specification for construing claim terms, the Federal Circuit noted that "[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning."[10]

In what can be seen as further reining in the broader scope of BRI, in a pair of related IPR appeals, the Federal Circuit emphasized the broadest reasonable standard in view of the claims and specification, and not the broadest possible standard that might disregard the plain meaning of a claim term.[11] In the PPC Broadband appeals, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB's construction of certain claim terms were overly broad because they relied on extrinsic dictionary evidence while ignoring the recited plain claim language calling for a narrower construction (the claim term "maintain electrical continuity" should have considered temporal effects recited in the claims[12]). The Federal Circuit faulted the PTAB for seemingly selecting the broadest definition of claim terms from referenced dictionary definitions, and went on to reason that "[w]hile such an approach may result in the broadest definition, it does not necessarily result in the broadest reasonable definition in light of the specification. The Board's approach in this case fails to account for how the claims themselves and the specification inform the ordinarily skilled artisan as to precisely which ordinary definition the patentee was using."[13]

In Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "the Board's construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence" and "[a] construction that is 'unreasonably broad' and which does not 'reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure' will not pass muster."[14]

Inconsistent Results Do Occur

In the IPR proceedings of Rackspace Hosting v. Rotatable Technologies,[15] the PTAB had the rare opportunity to construe claims previously defined by the district court. In doing so, the PTAB notably construed the claim term "computer display window" differently than did the district court. The district court construed the claim term "computer display window" under the Phillips standard to be a graphical user interface displayable on a monitor or screen. The PTAB construed the same claim term "computer display window" as a division of a display screen in which a set of information is displayed. Interestingly, the PTAB rejected both parties' proposed constructions for "computer display window" and instead relied on the definition provided by a technical dictionary that was found consistent with the specification, where the specification did not provide a definition for "computer display window."[16] With this, the PTAB's construction of "computer display window" (not requiring a GUI) permits a potentially broader construction than found by the district court.

In the CBMR proceedings Jack Henry and Associates, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp., the PTAB declined to adopt the district court's interpretation of the claim term, "subsystem identification information."[17] The petitioner argued that the district court's interpretation should be adopted, but the PTAB found that the petitioner provided no persuasive analysis as to how the term is to be interpreted under the BRI standard, which is different from the Phillips standard used by a district court.

Inconsistent results also occurred in cases decided by the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the predecessor to the PTAB. In In re Baxter International, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the BPAI that invalidated certain claims of a patent owned by Baxter.[18] This was despite the Federal Circuit's earlier having upheld a district court's decision granting judgment as a matter of law, finding that the defendant, Fresenius, failed as a matter of law to show by clear and convincing evidence that their prior art invalidated the same patent claims. Here, Fresenius filed an ex parte reexamination challenging Baxter's patent while the same patent was involved in district court litigation. Notably, Fresenius included new prior art references in the reexamination that were not presented in the district court. Although the Federal Circuit affirmed two inconsistent results from the district court and BPAI, it could be argued that this was due more likely to the new prior art cited in the reexamination than the different claim construction standards.

Conclusion: Toward Congruent Claim Construction

As noted, inconsistent results have occurred between PTAB proceedings and district courts. However, these can often be attributed to additional circumstances, such as new prior art's being presented between proceedings, a different burden of proof standard, or a party inadequately advocating for consistent claim constructions. Though the possibility of inconsistent results exists, practitioners may best be served by remembering that claim construction analysis takes into consideration the plain meaning of the claim terms in light of disclosure under both the BRI and Phillips standards. By doing so, practitioners may be in better position to prepare accordingly.

For instance, practitioners may take advantage of this recognized overlap between standards to advocate for the same claim constructions when it better suits their positions. In other words, while it is important to evaluate claims for potentially different claim constructions in parallel proceedings in district court and before the PTAB, practitioners may analyze whether there exists a single construction that can be advocated with persuasive analysis before both the district court and the PTAB, and that would still be beneficial to their positions. This may be a strategy within the control of parties to ensure consistent results, instead of leaving it entirely up to the courts and the PTAB.

Originally published on July 20, 2016 in Law360

Footnotes

[1] Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425 (U.S. June 20, 2016).

[2] Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc).

[3] MPEP 2111.01.

[4] Id.

[5] Philips at 1312.

[6] Philips at 1314 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2004).

[7] Id.

[8] Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 2014 WL 4454956, 4 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 11, 2014) (non-precedential).

[9] Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

[10] Id. at 1361.

[11] PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm'ns, Appeal No. 2015-1361, et al. (Fed. Cir., Feb. 22, 2016); and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Comm'ns, Appeal No. 2015-1364 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 22, 2016).

[12] Representative claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,323,060 recites, in part: "... so as to maintain electrical continuity between the coupler and the post when the coupler is in the partially tightened position on the interface port, even when the coupler is in the fully tightened position on the interface port, and even when the post moves relative to the coupler."

[13] PPC, Appeal No. 2015-1364 (Slip Op., at 7).

[14] Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.Cir.2010)).

[15] Rackspace Hosting v. Rotatable Technologies, IPR2013-00248.

[16] Id. paper 10 at p. 9

[17] Jack Henry and Associates, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp., CBM2014-00056 (PTAB, Paper No. 16).

[18] In re Baxter Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.

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.

Authors
Miyoung Shin
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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