Supreme Court Upholds PTAB Rules in Cuozzo v. Lee Patent Case
The Supreme Court ruled in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee that the Patent and Trademark Office's ability to institute inter partes reviews via the 2011 America Invents Act isn't subject to appeals. The Supreme Court also upheld Patent and Trademark…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Appeal Board's patent claims interpretation standard. Cuozzo sought a Supreme Court review after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 2015 that AIA bars parties from challenging PTAB authority to conduct IPRs. Cuozzo unsuccessfully defended its patent on an interface for displaying a vehicle's speed and the speed limit at a particular location during a Garmin-initiated PTAB IPR. “Applying the broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review is not, as Cuozzo suggests, unfair to a patent holder, who may move to amend at least once in the review process, and who has had several opportunities to amend in the original application process," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's majority opinion Monday, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Anthony Kennedy. “And though the application of one standard in inter partes review and another in district court proceedings may produce inconsistent outcomes, that structure is inherent to Congress' regulatory design, and it is also consistent with past practice, as the patent system has long provided different tracks for the review and adjudication of patent claims.” Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion that partially concurred and partially dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Alito's opinion. Congress has given PTAB “considerable authority” to review patent claims but has also “cabined that power by imposing significant conditions on the Patent Office's institution of patent review proceedings,” Alito said. “Unlike the Court, I do not think that Congress intended to shield the Patent Office's compliance -- or noncompliance -- with these limits from all judicial scrutiny.” PTO believes the Supreme Court's ruling “will allow [PTAB] to maintain its vital mission of effectively and efficiently resolving patentability disputes while providing faster, less expensive alternatives to district court litigation,” said Director Michelle Lee in a statement.