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 “Quick-Fixes” for AIA Rules and Three-Part Roll-out Plan: Immediate Changes to Page Limits

April 01, 2015

Authored and Edited by Maureen D. Queler; Mary E. Chlebowski

On March 27, USPTO Director Michelle K. Lee issued a blog post discussing a three-part roll-out plan designed to address various comments from the IP community about the current rules and guidance for AIA proceedings. http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for. According to the Director, the first part, referred to as “quick fixes,” would be simple in scope; the second part would be a proposed-rule package that involve changes to the PTAB Trial Rules; and the final part would relate to modifications to the current Trial Practice Guide. Director Lee stated that the three phase roll-out would bring improvements to the proceedings as soon as possible.

While the “quick fixes” won’t issue until spring, the Director stated that judges will begin implementing the new procedures through scheduling orders effective immediately. These will include:

  • The page limit for a petitioner’s reply brief, currently capped at 15 pages, will increase to 25 pages;
  • The page limit for motions to amend, currently capped at 15 pages will also increase to 25 pages;
  • Patent Owners will be allowed to include a claim appendix with motions to amend; and
  • Commensurate amounts of additional pages will be available for oppositions to motions to amend and reply briefs.

Director Lee also highlighted several proposals that would be part of the second package to issue in late summer: (1) further modifications regarding motions to amend; (2) adjustments to the evidence that can be provided in the patent owner preliminary response; (3) clarification of the claim construction standard as applied to expired patents; (4) adjustments to the scope of additional discovery; (5) how to handle multiple proceedings involving the same patent; (6) use of live testimony at oral hearings; and (7) whether parties should be required to make a certification with their filings similar to a Rule 11 certification in a district court litigation. The Director particularly emphasized certain proposals regarding motions to amend, which she stated would provide a “noticeabl[e] limit” on the burden on patent owners.

Finally, regarding the proposals to the Trial Practice Guide, the Director stated that the PTAB was seeking to: (1) clarify the use of live testimony, noting that the PTAB wants to highlight the availability of such testimony; and (2) emphasize the importance of real-party-in-interest (RPI) discovery for determinations of standing and estoppel consequences. The Director also discussed plans to set up a single-judge pilot program for institution based on a concern that judges participating in a decision to institute may not be completely objective during the trial phase.

Tags

motions to amend (MTA), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Copyright © 2015 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

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 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