During an IPR/PRG proceeding, a patent owner may once amend the challenged claims. The amendment can cancel a challenged claim or propose substitute claims. The proposed substitute claims are only “proposed claims.” They are not added to the patent unless the corresponding motion to amend has been granted by the Board.
Motions to amend must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.121, and can be filed after approval by the Board. Because the scope of a motion to amend is limited to a response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in the trial, the patent owner is not allowed to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter. Thus, for each proposed substitute claim, the motion must identify 1) the challenged claim which it is intended to replace; 2) a patentable distinction over the prior art; and 3) written description support in the original disclosure of the patent for the substitute claim. In two recent decisions, the Board provided guidance on these requirements.
In Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom Inc., IPR2012-00027 (JL), Paper 26 (June 11, 2013), the Board clarified that, in the absence of a special need, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one substitute claim. Thus, the Board requires that all proposed claims be traceable to an original challenged claim as a proposed substitute claim for that challenged claim. While the Board did not identify what is sufficient to meet the “special need” requirement, the Board did explain that “a desire to obtain a new set of claims of different scope” is insufficient.
The Board also clarified that to show a patentable distinction some presentation must be made distinguishing proposed substitute claims from the closest prior art known to the patent owner. The showing can be made through an expert declaration. Conclusory statements by counsel, however, are inadequate.
In Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005 (JYC), Paper 27 (June 3, 2013), the Board outlined the requirements for showing written description support for proposed substitute claims. The Board noted that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1), the patent owner is required to clearly identify the written description support from the original disclosure of the patent for each proposed substitute claim. The Board cautioned that merely indicating where each claim limitation is individually described in the original disclosure may be insufficient to demonstrate support for the claim as a whole. Moreover, while the proposed substitute claims do not need to be described verbatim in the original disclosure, the Board advised that a citation to the original disclosure without any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as a whole may be similarly inadequate.
Copyright © 2013 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.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March 2024
April 30, 2024
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.