Source: https://www.ptabmusings.com/2015/02/federal-circuit-preserves-broadest-reasonable-interpretation-standard-in-ipr-proceedings/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:52:55+00:00

Document:
In In re. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time the standards for Inter Partes Review proceedings resulting from the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”).1 This decision will not only have a significant impact on Inter Partes Review proceedings brought before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), but also on strategic considerations for parties involved in active patent disputes and litigation.
The AIA replaced the prior Inter Partes Reexamination proceedings with the current Inter Partes Review proceedings. While many provisions of both proceedings are similar, other provisions differ.
As a result, challengers of a patent can at present rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as a basis for challenging claims in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, thus availing themselves of an easier burden in invalidating challenged claims. Absent this standard, the strategic merit of Inter Partes Review proceedings would have been limited.
While this decision preserves a major benefit of challenging claims through an Inter Partes Review proceeding, other factors will affect the strategic decision of whether to challenge claims in a District Court proceeding, or through an Inter Partes Review proceeding. A lawyer knowledgeable in such matters should be consulted before any decision is made.
In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, Case No. 14-1301, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
35 U.S.C. § 311 was created by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113, Nov. 29, 1999.
Imposition of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard was not statutory, but rather established through precedent. The Cuozzo decision discusses this history at page 12 of the slip opinion. Construction of the scope of claims in District Court litigation is based on the standards established in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), an en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, which provided that “[b]ecause the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116. Those sources include “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.; see also Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2004); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979-80.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
For example, Cuozzo argued that had the PTAB not imposed the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the claims at issue would not have been found invalid.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 301. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 305 provided bounds for limiting the involvement of the challenger, bounds which did not include the taking of discovery.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 316(c).
Cuozzo, Slip opinion at page 12.
Cuozzo, slip opinion at page 4.
Cuozzo, slip opinion, at page 19.

References: § 311
 v. 
 v. 
 § 301
 § 305
 § 315
 § 316