Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

cellation of “1 or more claims of a patent” on the grounds 
that  the  claim  fails  the  novelty  or  nonobviousness  stand-
ards  for  patentability.    §311(b).    The  challenges  must  be 
made  “only  on  the  basis  of  prior  art  consisting  of  patents 
or  printed  publications.”    Ibid.    If  a  petition  is  filed,  the 
patent  owner  has  the  right  to  file  a  preliminary  response 
explaining  why  inter  partes  review  should  not  be  insti- 
tuted.  §313. 
  Before he can institute inter partes review, the Director 
must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that 
the  petitioner  would  prevail  with  respect  to  at  least  1  of 
the claims challenged.”  §314(a).  The decision whether to 
institute inter partes review is committed to the Director’s 
discretion.    See  Cuozzo  Speed  Technologies,  LLC  v.  Lee, 
579  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2016)  (slip  op.,  at  9).    The  Director’s 
decision is “final and nonappealable.”  §314(d).1 
  Once  inter  partes  review  is  instituted,  the  Patent  Trial 
and  Appeal  Board—an  adjudicatory  body  within  the  PTO 
created  to  conduct  inter  partes  review—examines  the 
patent’s  validity.    See  35  U. S. C.  §§6,  316(c).    The  Board 
sits  in  three-member  panels  of  administrative  patent 
judges.    See  §6(c).    During  the  inter  partes  review,  the 
petitioner  and  the  patent  owner  are  entitled  to  certain 
discovery,  §316(a)(5);  to  file  affidavits,  declarations,  and 
written  memoranda,  §316(a)(8);  and  to  receive  an  oral 
hearing before the Board, §316(a)(10).  The petitioner has 
the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance 
of  the  evidence.    §316(e).    The  owner  can  file  a  motion  to 
amend  the  patent  by  voluntarily  canceling  a  claim  or  by 
“propos[ing]  a  reasonable  number  of  substitute  claims.”  
§316(d)(1)(B).    The  owner  can  also  settle  with  the  peti- 
tioner by filing a written agreement prior to the Board’s final 
decision, which terminates the proceedings with respect to 

—————— 

1 The  Director  has  delegated  his  authority  to  the  Patent  Trial  and 

Appeal Board.  See 37 CFR §42.108(c) (2017).