March 02, 2016
Authored and Edited by Marianne S. Terrot, Ph.D.; James D. Stein
In related appeals, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s invalidation of 49 claims across three patents challenged in Inter Partes Review. PPC Broadband, Inc., v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, Nos. 2015-1361, -1366, -1368, and -1369 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (“PPC I”) and PPC Broadband, Inc., v. Corning Optical Comms. RF, LLC, No. 2015-1364 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (“PPC II”).
In both decisions, the same panel highlighted differences between the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard applied by the PTAB and the Phillips standard applied by district courts. The PTAB’s use of BRI has been upheld by a divided Federal Circuit and is awaiting Supreme Court review. See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert granted, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016).
In PPC I, for a majority of the claims, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB overlooked a key claim limitation, and it therefore vacated and remanded the PTAB’s obviousness decision. For the remainder of the claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation, but noted that it was not the “correct” construction under Phillips. Here, the court commented, “the claim construction standard is outcome determinative.” Should Cuozzo be reversed by the Supreme Court, the outcome in PPC I could be disrupted on remand.
In PPC II, the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB claim construction for being unreasonable. According to the court, “[t]he Board seems to have arrived at its construction by referencing the dictionaries cited by the parties and simply selecting the broadest definition therein. […] While such an approach may result in the broadest definition, it does not necessarily result in the broadest reasonable definition in light of the specification.” (Emphases added.) The Federal Circuit also stated that the canon that different terms must have different meanings is inapplicable to terms in non-limiting preambles. Finally, the court rejected Corning’s argument that the BRI is that interpretation which includes as many disclosed embodiments as possible, holding that there is no requirement for “each and every claim [to be] interpreted to cover each and every embodiment” under the BRI standard. Merely covering the most embodiments does not make a construction reasonable. The Federal Circuit thus vacated and remanded the invalidity determination for analysis under a corrected claim construction.
Some have argued that the difference between the BRI and Phillips standards is largely theoretical and not outcome-determinative, but PPC I is one example where that is not true.
broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), claim construction, Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Prosecution First Blog
February 17, 2023
Prosecution First Blog
The CCPA’s Lasting Impact on U.S. Patent Law – An Examination of CCPA Enablement Decisions
November 4, 2022
Prosecution First Blog
Watch Your Language: The Perils of Patent Profanity - Consideration of Both the U.S. and Europe
March 5, 2021
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Issues Memorandum Aligning Indefiniteness Standard with District Court
January 11, 2021
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.