Federal Circuit: Claim Amendments During IPR That Respond to Grounds of Unpatentability May Also Make Changes Unrelated to the IPR

Dec 1, 2022

Reading Time : 1 min

In American National Manufacturing, Inc. v. Sleep Number Corp, the appellant-petitioner American National argued that the PTAB erred in its application of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 when it permitted Sleep Number to include certain claim amendments to “achieve consistency and accuracy in terminology and phrasing throughout the patent family.” Section 42.121 specifies that a motion to amend may be denied where “[t]he amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” In applying this regulation, the PTAB determined that any claim amended to address a ground of unpatentability could also be amended for other reasons, including potential § 101 and § 112 issues.

On appeal, American National argued the Board violated due process and the APA by allowing additional amendments in the context of an IPR. More specifically, American National argued it would be unfair and asymmetrical to allow patentees to use an IPR as a vehicle to amend claims to address § 101 or § 112 issues when petitioners cannot challenge claims on those grounds.

The Federal Circuit, however, disagreed. Citing previous decisions, the court noted that petitioners are free to challenge amended claims on grounds that go beyond § 102 and § 103, including on § 101 and § 112. Thus, it discerned no asymmetry between patentees and petitioners in the context of a motion to amend. And because each of the amended claims contained an amendment responsive to a ground of unpatentability raised in the IPR proceeding, Sleep Number’s additional amendments were not improper.

Practice Tip: For patentees facing co-pending litigation and IPR proceedings, there may be an opportunity to amend claims to defeat both the IPR petition and live defenses in the litigation. It is important, however, to weigh that value of such a result against the risk of possible invalidation or intervening rights. And, similarly, defendants considering filing an IPR petition must weigh the possibility that the Patent Owner might use a motion to amend to remedy potential § 112 deficiencies.

American National Manufacturing, Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, Case Nos. 2021-1321

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.