United States: Recent Changes At The PTAB Appear To Benefit Patent Owners

Since the America Invents Act created new post-grant review proceedings, such as inter partes reviews (IPRs), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been viewed as a reliable venue for invalidating patents. To date, the institution rate for IPRs is approximately 67 percent, and the PTAB has invalidated at least one claim in 80 percent of instituted IPRs.1 In IPRs where the patent owner has sought claim amendments, the PTAB has denied 90 percent of motions to amend.2

Against this petitioner-friendly background, the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have recently issued decisions or rules that should weigh in favor of patent owners.

This article considers those changes.


A recurring criticism of IPRs by patent owners has been the potential for multiple validity attacks and the need to defend the patent in different forums with different claim construction standards. Several of the recent developments address these concerns and may serve to limit multiple challenges and provide more uniform standards in the PTAB and other litigation forums, such as district courts and the ITC.

1. The All-or-Nothing Approach

For the first five years of IPR practice, the PTAB routinely instituted IPRs for some, but not all, of the claims challenged in an IPR petition. While the AIA includes estoppel provisions relating to IPRs, the Federal Circuit has limited the estoppel to only those grounds decided in the PTAB's final written decision. The net result has permitted petitioners to later attack validity, in district courts or the ITC, for those claims for which IPR was not instituted.3

The days of partial institutions are over. In its SAS Institute v. Iancu decision, the Supreme Court determined that institution of an IPR must include a review of all claims challenged in the petition along with a final written decision addressing all such claims.4 Thus, since all challenged claims will be subject to an instituted IPR review, the estoppel provisions should extend to all challenged claims and limit the ability of the petitioner to later attack validity on other prior art grounds.

2. The Phillips Claim Construction Standard

Patent owners have often criticized the use of different claim construction standards in IPRs than in district courts and the ITC. Until recently, the PTAB applied the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (BRI) claim construction standard—the same standard used during ex parte prosecution before the USPTO—to unexpired patents that could still be amended, and the Phillips claim construction standard to expired patents. District courts and the ITC, on the other hand, apply the Phillips standard in all cases. Under BRI, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, and, under Phillips, claim terms are given the ordinary and customary meaning that they would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

District courts and the ITC typically gave little deference to the PTAB, and vice versa, on issues of claim construction, ostensibly because different standards were being applied. As a result, the parties often relitigated claim construction issues in multiple venues. Moreover, the use of different claim construction standards opened the door for presenting different or inconsistent arguments in different venues. For example, a petitioner could argue for a broad construction of a claim term under the BRI standard in an effort to invalidate the claim at the PTAB, and argue for a more narrow construction under the Phillips standard in an effort to avoid infringement in district court or the ITC.

Seeking "greater uniformity and predictability," the PTAB will now apply the Phillips claim construction standard and must consider (but not necessarily follow) any prior claim construction determination.5

While there are differences in the articulation of the BRI and Phillips standards, there appears to be little practical difference. The real impacts of the rule change may be indirect. For example, the more complex claim construction inquiry of Phillips may create more opportunities for appellants (usually patent owners) to have a construction reversed or remanded on appeal. The rule change may also raise the persuasiveness of the first claim construction on any later venue's construction and the consistency of positions parties must take in different forums.

3. Real Party in Interest Issues

In an effort to limit duplicitous proceedings, the AIA includes a one-year time period for filing an IPR petition that begins when "the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging patent infringement."6 Although the one-year bar broadly covers a range of parties, the ability to determine whether a petition was time-barred due to a real party in interest or privy being served with a complaint for patent infringement was curtailed by the limited discovery permitted in IPRs. Two recent Federal Circuit rulings addressing the real party in interest analysis put another arrow in the patent owner's quiver for defeating IPR institution.

In one recent decision, the Federal Circuit held that the petitioner has the burden to show that the petition is not time-barred, rather than the patent owner having the burden to show that the petition is time-barred.7 The patent owner can raise the issue by presenting sufficient evidence to "reasonably bring[] into question" whether the real parties in interest identified in the IPR petition are correct;8 if the petitioner cannot meet its burden that the petition is not time-barred, the petition may properly be denied.

In another recent decision, the Federal Circuit described "real party in interest" as having its "expansive common-law meaning," and that the analysis "demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner."9 According to the Federal Circuit, the PTAB should have explored the relationship between the alleged real party in interest and the petitioner to determine whether the petitioner served as a "proxy" or "agent" when petitioning for review.10

4. Limiting Follow-on Petitions

There are numerous instances in which patent owners faced serial IPRs, for example, when the same petitioner files follow-on petitions or when different petitioners file petitions that rely on the same or similar prior art. Often, a later petition is filed after denial of an earlier petition, where the later petition uses the denial of the earlier petition as a roadmap. In August of 2018, the USPTO issued an update to the Trial Practice Guide that emphasized the PTAB's discretion to deny these types of petitions.11

For follow-on petitions, the PTAB should consider, for example, (i) whether the same petitioner previously challenged the same claims, (ii) whether the petitioner knew or should have known of the prior art presented in the second petition when it filed the first petition, and (iii) whether the petition already had the patent owner's preliminary response from the first petition when it filed the second petition.12

For petitions having the same or similar prior art or arguments from a previous petition, the PTAB should consider, for example, (i) the similarities to the previously presented prior art, (ii) the extent to which the prior art was previously evaluated by the USPTO, and (iii) whether the petition has sufficiently explained how the USPTO erred in its previous analysis of the prior art.13 This approach stems from 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which allows the PTAB to deny a petition that is based on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented. Despite some complaints that the PTAB applies this rule inconsistently, the Supreme Court recently declined to review the PTAB's application of § 325(d).14


Other recent developments have responded to complaints by patent owners that it is too difficult to amend claims involved in IPRs.

1. The Petitioner's Burden

Initially, the PTAB treated motions to amend like any other motion, in which the moving party bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.15 Patent owners bore the ultimate burden of showing that any proposed amended claims are patentable.16

is not on the patent owner.17 As a result, the USPTO has said that new or amended claims will be granted, unless the petitioner can prove they are unpatentable.18

While this change may be to the benefit of patent owners, the grant rate for motions to amend remains quite low. Prior to the change, approximately 90 percent of motions to amend were denied, and, since the change, the denial rate reduced slightly to 84 percent.

2. Proposed Motion-to-Amend Procedures

An overhaul of the motion-to-amend procedure is underway.19 According to recent proposed rule changes, the patent owner would be permitted to propose substitute claims in response to an institution decision, the petitioner would have an opportunity to oppose, and the PTAB would issue a preliminary, nonbinding decision on patentability of the substitute claims. The parties could respond to the preliminary decision, including the patent owner having the right to revise its motion to amend.

These additional filings follow an aggressive schedule. For example, the proposed rules require filing of a motion to amend within six weeks of the institution decision, the filing of the petitioner's opposition within six weeks thereafter, and the issuance of the PTAB's preliminary decision within one month of the petitioner's opposition.

While the schedule may be rushed, the entire procedure is intended to improve the patent owner's opportunity to amend the claims.


IPRs have been a popular tool to challenge the validity of a patent, independent of or as an adjunct to district court or ITC proceedings. IPR practice has continued to evolve since its inception in 2013. As might be expected of any area of new legal procedure, many of the changes seek to strike a balance between providing an efficient alternative for analyzing invalidity issues and permitting a full and fair hearing of those issues without unduly burdening the parties or the USPTO. While some of the recent changes tend to favor patent owners, IPRs and other PTAB trial proceedings remain important components of an overall litigation strategy.


1. Trial Statistics IPR, PGR, CBM, Patent Trial and Appeal Board September 2018, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial_statistics_20180930a.pdf , pp. 7, 11.

2. Patent and Trial Appeal Board Motion to Amend Study, Installment 4: Updated through July 2018, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/motions-amend-study, p. 7.

3. Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

4. SAS Institute v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018).

5. 83 Fed. Reg. 51342 (Oct. 11, 2018) (USPTO Changes to the Claim Construction Standard); 37 C.F.R. § 100 (2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

6. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

7. Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

8. Id. at 1241-1242.

9. Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1344–58 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. Unified Patents, Inc. v. RealTime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2018) (stating that the RPI analysis is not merely about who benefits from the IPR petition, but requires ascertaining the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and any alleged privy or real party in interest to the petitioner).

10. Id.

11. USPTO Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) ("Trial Guide Update") at 11-13.

12. Trial Guide Update at 9, based on General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017).

13. Trial Guide Update, based on Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017).

14. SSL Servs., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 721 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, (U.S. Nov. 19, 2018).

15. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20.

16. MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42, at 4 (PTAB July 15, 2015).

17. Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

18. November 21, 2017 USPTO Memorandum re Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products at 2; Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., IPR2018-00082, Paper 13, at 4 (PTAB April 25, 2018) (designated as informative).

19. 83 Fed. Reg. 54319 (October 29, 2018) (USPTO Request for Comments on Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceeding Under the AIA before the PTAB).

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
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
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