ARTICLE
12 October 2018

PTAB Adopts The Phillips Claim Construction Standard In AIA Proceedings

M
Mintz

Contributor

Mintz is a general practice, full-service Am Law 100 law firm with more than 600 attorneys. We are headquartered in Boston and have additional US offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, as well as an office in Toronto, Canada.
Today the Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced a final rule changing the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in IPR, post-grant review ("PGR"), and covered business method patent ("CBM") proceedings.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Today the Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced a final rule changing the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review ("IPR"), post-grant review ("PGR"), and covered business method patent ("CBM") proceedings. The Board retired the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") standard in favor of the standard used to construe patent claims in federal court and the International Trade Commission ("ITC") as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp. In doing so, the Board announced that it will now consider prior constructions, either from a federal district court or the ITC, in construing a claim term in an IPR, PGR, or CBM, where such prior constructions are timely made of record. This rule change is another positive development for patent owners and should provide for consistent construction of the same term across multiple tribunals going forward.

Parties may now strategically align claim construction arguments before a district court, the ITC, or the Federal Circuit, which allows for greater consistency across all tribunals and synchronized positions as to validity and infringement. Although the Board is required by statute to employ a different and less strict preponderance of the evidence standard in determining the patentability of a challenged claim—in contrast to the higher clear and convincing standard used in federal court and at the ITC—there is no statute applicable to either the Board or federal courts requiring different standards for claim construction. This rule change results in minimizing the differences between claim construction standards used in different fora, with the intent of providing greater uniformity and predictability of the patent grant. Because a large majority of patents subject to a petition before the Board are also being examined concurrently by another tribunal, considering how another tribunal has already construed the same term should better ensure that the scope of the patent will not depend merely upon the happenstance of which court or governmental agency interprets it.

The change to the Phillips standard is a highly anticipated rule change as evidenced by the 374 comments received by the Patent and Trademark Office – a majority of which supported the change. The new rule goes into effect on November 13, 2018, but will not apply to petitions filed before that date. We are therefore likely to see a significant uptick in petitions filed before November 13 as petitioners try to take advantage of the more favorable BRI standard while it still exists.

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.

ARTICLE
12 October 2018

PTAB Adopts The Phillips Claim Construction Standard In AIA Proceedings

United States Intellectual Property

Contributor

Mintz is a general practice, full-service Am Law 100 law firm with more than 600 attorneys. We are headquartered in Boston and have additional US offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, as well as an office in Toronto, Canada.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More