PTAB’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Affirmed by Fed. Circuit in First Ever IPR Appeal

Feb 5, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

In 2013, the PTAB found Cuozzo’s US Patent No. 6,778,074, which is titled “[s]peed limit indicator and method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit,” obvious in light of prior art. In its decision published on Wednesday, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s finding of obviousness. More notably, the CAFC also upheld the PTAB’s “broadest reasonable interpretation” claim construction standard that it applies to IPRs. Cuozzo argued—and Judge Pauline Newman agreed in her dissent—that the PTAB should use the same, narrower claim construction standard employed by district courts, which the ordinary­and­customary­meaning standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). HoweveSr, the AIA is silent as to the claim construction standard to be used during IPR, merely stating instead that IPR rulemaking authority is conveyed to the PTO. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(2), (a)(4). In its decision, the CAFC held that “[p]ursuant to this authority, the PTO has promulgated 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), which provides that ‘[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction.’” Slip op. at 11. The CAFC then affirmed the PTAB’s use of its broadened claim construction standard for multiple reasons. First, the CAFC reasoned that the PTAB has applied its broadened standard “for more than 100 years in various types of PTO proceedings,” including pre­AIA inter and ex partes reexamination and interference proceedings, and circuit courts have likewise approved that standard on appeal for more than a century. Id. at 12. Second, the CAFC noted that “[i]t would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges who, postissuance, operate under the assumption the patent is valid.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Third, the CAFC found no indication in the text of the AIA that it was designed to change the claim construction standard that the PTO has applied for more than 100 years. Id. at 13. Additionally, the CAFC held that the PTAB’s decisions of whether or not to institute an IPR is not appealable. Id. at 6­10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)).

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, no. 2014­1301, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (on appeal from the PTAB in No. IPR2012­00001).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.