On Friday, January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446. The petition has been closely followed since it was filed on October 6, 2015, and the briefing addresses the following issues, which have been hotly debated since the inception of AIA post-grant review:
- Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) rather than their plain and ordinary meaning, as applied in federal district court; and
- Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board’s decision whether to institute is judicially unreviewable.
Denied en banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit on July 8, 2015, over five dissenting judges, this case involves the first AIA issue to successfully reach the Supreme Court for consideration.
News and Media Resources
Wait, There’s a Second Issue in Cuozzo?, February 15, 2016
In re Cuozzo: Thumbs Up for the PTAB, March 2015
In re Cuozzo: A Landslide Victory for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Almost, February 13, 2015
Reading the Tea Leaves: In re Cuozzo and the Federal Circuit’s Consideration of PTAB Institution Decisions and Claim Construction, November 28, 2014
Finnegan Blog Posts
High Court Accepts First AIA Cast, Could Rule By June 2016, January 20, 2016
Review of Institution Decision Barred Unless Board Exceeds Its Authority – A Tale of Two Decisions, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies and Versata v. SAP America, July 23, 2015
Divided Federal Circuit Panel Upholds Non-Appealable Nature of PTAB Institution Decisions (Part II), February 20, 2015
Divided Federal Circuit Panel Upholds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard, Non-Appealable Nature of PTAB Institution Decisions (Part I), February 6, 2015
Appeal of First IPR to Federal Circuit (Part II): Oral Argument, December 12, 2014
Appeal of First IPR to Federal Circuit (Part I): Issues Presented in Briefing, November 19, 2014
PTAB Applies Stringent Standards for Conception and Reduction-to-Practice Standards, December 3, 2013
The First IPR Is in the Books – Analysis of the PTAB’s Decision in Garmin v. Cuozzo: A Three Part Series, November 25, 2013
PTAB Denies Motion to Amend Claims in First IPR Final Written Decision, November 26, 2014
What Information Will the USPTO Allow to Be Sealed During an IPR?, April 24, 2013
Limits on Discovery in IPRs: No Fishing Expeditions for Information Relating to Infringement, April 15, 2013
PTAB Documents
Cuozzo Final Written Decision, November 13, 2013
Garmin’s Reply to Cuozzo’s Patent Owner’s Response, May 21, 2013
Garmin’s Reply to Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend, May 21, 2013
Cuozzo’s Patent Owner’s Response, March 11, 2013
Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend, March 11, 2013
Garmin’s IPR Petition, September 16, 2012
Federal Circuit Documents
Cuozzo Fed. Cir. En Banc Denial, July 8, 2015
Cuozzo Fed. Cir. Petition for En Banc Rehearing, July 6, 2015
Cuozzo Appeal from PTAB to Fed. Circ., February 4, 2015
Cuozzo Oral Argument, December 12, 2014
Supreme Court Documents
Amicus Briefs in Support of Cuozzo or Neither Party
Cuozzo’s Merits Brief
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted, January 15, 2016
Cuozzo’s Petition for Writ of Cert filed, October 6, 2015
Tags
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
