December 21, 2020
Authored and Edited by Trenton A. Ward; Kevin D. Rodkey
On December 21, 2020, the USPTO published its final rule allocating the burdens of persuasion for motions to amend and the patentability of proposed substitute claims in IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings. This rule package follows up on the USPTO’s notice of proposed rulemaking released in October 2019. This rule largely codifies the existing practice and the Federal Circuit’s precedent in Aqua Products and other decisions regarding motions to amend in AIA trials.
Specifically, the final rule “assigns the burden of persuasion to the patent owner to show … that a motion to amend complies with certain statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend.” 85 Fed. Reg. 82923, 82924 (Dec. 21, 2020). For example, a Patent Owner bears the burden to show that proposed substitute claims comply with statutory requirements and regulatory requirements, such as responding to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial and not seeking to enlarge the scope of the claims. On the other hand, the final rule, however, “assigns the burden of persuasion to the petitioner to show … that any proposed substitute claims are unpatentable.” Id.
As to independent action by the Board, the final rule also provides that “the Board may, in the interests of justice, exercise its discretion to grant or deny a motion to amend, but only for reasons supported by readily identifiable and persuasive evidence of record in the proceeding.” Id. In exercising its discretion, the Board may make of record readily identifiable and persuasive evidence in a related proceeding before the Office or evidence that a district court can judicially notice. The Office stated that it anticipates that the Board will exercise its discretion in “only in rare circumstances.” Id.
These final rules will be effective on January 20, 2021. Thus, these new rules will apply to all motions to amend filed on or after January 20, 2021.
Copyright © 2020 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.