直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

New PTAB Final Rule Places Burden on Patent Owner to Show Motion to Amend Complies with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

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.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP