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

PTAB Denies Motion to Amend Claims in First IPR Final Written Decision

November 26, 2013

Authored and Edited by Abhay A. Watwe, Ph.D.; Anthony A. Hartmann

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued its first final written decision in an IPR proceeding, Garmin Intl., Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012‑00001, Paper 59 at 47‑49 (Nov. 13, 2013). In its decision, the PTAB denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend all of the rejected claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (“the ’074 patent”). The PTAB held that Cuozzo’s proposed amendments both enlarged the claim scope and introduced new matter contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3).

Cuozzo’s patent relates to a speed limit indicator with rejected claim 10 requiring a speedometer integrally attached to a colored display. Cuozzo’s motion proposed substitute claim 21, which added two limitations to claim 10: the speedometer comprises a liquid crystal display and the colored display is the liquid crystal display. While these added limitations had been recited in claims 12 and 18, the PTAB found Cuozzo failed to establish written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for the combination—the colored display is the liquid crystal display comprised by the speedometer.

The PTAB also found that the Cuozzo’s proposed amended claim enlarged the scope of the claims, particularly in view of the PTAB’s construction of “integrally attached.” Based on its construction, PTAB observed that it was illogical to regard an apparatus as being integrally attached to a component completely contained within itself. Yet proposed claim 21 recited expressly this scenario.

Patent owners may find the PTAB’s analysis instructive when amending claims in an IPR proceeding. In particular, patent owners need to ensure that the amended claims do not cover embodiments not already covered by the unamended claims and to carefully document written description support for the proposed claims. When making claim amendments, patent owners should consider using the phrasing used in the original specification to ensure that the specification explicitly discloses the subject matter of the amended claims.

Tags

claim construction, Garmin v. Cuozzo, motions to amend (MTA), Written description (35 USC § 112)

Contacts

Abhay A. Watwe, Ph.D.
Of Counsel
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2716
Email
Anthony A. Hartmann
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4275
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

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