United States: Federal Circuit Splits On Deference To Agency Rules

Last Updated: October 16 2017
Article by Kevin Greenleaf and Scott Cummings

Requires more formality in rulemaking to place burden on patent owners for motions to amend

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Court), sitting en banc, issued its long-anticipated decision in Aqua Products[i], regarding properly allocating the burden of proving validity (or invalidity) when amending claims during inter partes reviews (IPRs) under the America Invents Act (AIA). In a limited victory for patent owners, a plurality of the fractured Court (five of eleven judges) narrowly concluded that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was prohibited from imposing the burden of proving the validity of amended claims on patent owners through adjudicatory rulemaking because,

  1. The PTO has not adopted a rule placing the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims on the patent owner that is entitled to deference; and
  2. In the absence of anything that might be entitled deference, the PTO may not place that burden on the patentee.[ii]

Beyond these holdings, a majority of the Court was unable to resolve the questions on appeal.[iii] It could agree[iv] only to vacate the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denying the patent owner's motion to amend, and to remand the case to reassess the validity of the amended claims without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner. "The Board must follow this same practice in all pending IPRs unless and until the Director engages in notice and comment rule-making," the majority said. "At that point, the court will be tasked with determining whether any practice so adopted is lawful."

The majority lamented that its job "has not been easy," and emphasized that beyond the order to vacate and remand, its other "cogitations ... are mere academic exercises."[v] These "cogitations" are nonetheless very interesting, as they concern issues of separation of powers and administrative law that are the subject of two important upcoming IP cases, SAS and WiFi One[vi]; other cases before the Supreme Court; and two pending bills: the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (H.R. 76) and the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 5, passed by House, January 11, 2017).

The issue that split the Court was the amount of deference, if any, the judiciary should show to the PTO, an administrative agency. When Congress passed the AIA, it directed the PTO to establish regulations governing motions to amend. In response, the PTO promulgated broad rules using formal notice and comment rulemaking, but the PTAB provided specific guidance through its adjudicatory decisions. For example, the PTAB specified that patent owners, as movants, bear the burden of demonstrating the validity of any proposed amended claims.[vii] After very low rates of granting motions to amend (i.e., completely denying 112 out of 118 motions)[viii] notwithstanding the "repeated recognition [by Congress, the courts and the PTO] of the importance of the patent owner's right to amend during IPR proceedings," a vigorous debate about the PTAB's amendment practice ensued—a debate that spilled over to the Federal Circuit, which issued five fractured opinions, totaling 148 pages, on the issue.

The plurality in Aqua Products held that the PTO's interpretation of its own regulations was not entitled to any judicial deference under the Chevron doctrine[ix] because: (1) the AIA (specifically, 35 USC §316(e)) unambiguously places the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate invalidity, and (2) even if the statute is ambiguous as to motions to amend, the PTAB's informative and representative decisions are informal and thus not entitled to the deference generally due to more formal rules. Similarly, the Court held that the PTAB's interpretations were not entitled to Auer deference (i.e., deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations) because there is no formal rule on-point, and the PTO cannot "rewrite its regulation in the guise of 'interpretation.'"[x]

Two concurring opinions agreed in part. Judge Moore warned that Chevron "effected a broad transfer of legislative and judicial function to the executive."[xi] Joined by Judges O'Malley and Newman, Judge Moore emphasized that decisions from an administrative law judge, even if promoted to informative or precedential status, do not rise to the level of substantive rules and do not deserve deference.[xii]

Judge Reyna's concurrence, joined by Judges Dyk and Prost, makes three main points. First, it reiterates that a majority of the Court believes that §316(e) does not clearly place the burden of persuasion for motions to amend. Second, the PTO's analysis that patent owners bear the burden of persuasion in motions to amend deserves no deference. Third, that patent owners bear a burden of production, i.e., they must satisfy minimum requirements for motions to amend. Three more judges—Taranto, Chen and Hughes (a majority of the court), joined this third part of the decision.

Judge Taranto, joined by judges Prost, Chen and Hughes, dissented, finding entirely proper a general rule[xiii] that places the burden of persuasion on the movant in any motion, by implication including motions to amend. The dissent further explained that that it need not rely on Chevron deference to find the PTO's position correct. Therefore, it agreed with the PTAB's denial of the motion to amend because the patent owner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating validity.

Finally, Judge Hughes, joined by Judge Chen, dissented on grounds like Judge Taranto's, noting that they would give either Chevron or Auer deference to the PTAB's placement of the burden to demonstrate validity. Judge Hughes also found disturbing the plurality's belief that Congress's delegation to the PTO to develop "regulations" required notice and comment rulemaking. Judge Hughes said he believes that "regulations" include more than notice and comment rulemaking—they also include guidance and decisions of administrative law judges. In summary, when the statute is ambiguous, Judge Hughes would give deference to almost any agency action, whether through regulation, guidance or adjudicatory decision.

Interested parties hotly debate the propriety of certain actions the PTAB takes, and administrative law is proving to be a potent vehicle for challenging PTAB decisions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will likely clarify this arcane but important area of administrative law. In the meantime, until the PTO engages in formal notice and comment rulemaking, the decision in Aqua Products could encourage patent owners to file more motions to amend, with higher expectations that they may succeed.

Dentons is prepared to defend its clients' interests before the PTAB in light of these and other important developments.

Footnotes

[i] Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, appeal no. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

[ii] Aqua products, slip op. at 66.

[iii] The two questions presented were as follows:

  1. When the patent owner moves to amend its claims under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), may the PTO require the patent owner to bear the burden of persuasion, or a burden of production, regarding patentability of the amended claims as a condition of allowing them? Which burdens are permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)?
  2. When the petitioner does not challenge the patentability of a proposed amended claim, or the Board thinks the challenge is inadequate, may the Board sua sponte raise patentability challenges to such a claim? If so, where would the burden of persuasion, or a burden of production, lie?

[iv] Judges Dyk and Reyna joined in the result, but for different reasons, thus making the vacature and remand a majority decision.

[v] Aqua products, slip op. at 66.

[vi] SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, Supreme Court dkt. No. 16-696, and Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Fed. Cir. appeal nos. 2015-1944, -1945, and -1946.

[vii] Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, paper 26, and MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., IPR2015-00040, paper 42.

[viii] USPTO, PTAB Motion to Amend Study, 2–4 (Apr. 30, 2016), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016-04-30%20PTAB%20MTA%20study.pdf.

[ix]  Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (courts should generally defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous statutes).

[x] Aqua products, slip op. at 44 (discussing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)).

[xi] Aqua products, slip op. at 80.

[xii] Aqua products, slip op. at 80.

[xiii] 37 C.F.R. §42.20(c). 

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
29 Aug 2018, Conference, Cape Town, South Africa

Dentons is proud to sponsor and present at Africa's most comprehensive event on audit, risk and governance.

29 Aug 2018, Other, San Jose, Costa Rica

Costa Rica will host the Cyberspace Camp® for the first time, a bootcamp that combines law and technology at the hands of ITechLaw.

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