直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 弁護士等
  • 業務内容
  • 論文等
  • オフィス
  • 事務所概要
  • 採用情報
Finnegan
  • 最新情報
  • Finneganについて
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • プロボノ活動
  • 事務所運営管理
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

James R. Barney

Full Fed. Circ. to Tackle Contentious PTAB Amendment Rules

August 12, 2016

Law360

On August 12, 2016, the full Federal Circuit agreed to review the Patent Trial and Board's (PTAB) rules governing amendments to patents in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. The decision came after Finnegan client Aqua Products, Inc. was granted a petition for en banc rehearing after the Federal Circuit previously upheld a PTAB decision in which Aqua was denied its request to amend its patent in an inter partes review.

Since AIA proceedings became available in 2012, patent owners have expressed frustration with how difficult it is to amend claims in AIA reviews. In April 2016, statistics showed that out of all requests to amend claims in AIA reviews, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had only granted six -- a 95% failure rate. According to Aqua, the high rate of denials is the result of what is believed to be a misinterpretation of a PTAB regulation which states that when a patent owner seeks to amend claims during an AIA proceeding, it has the burden of showing that the proposed new claims are patentable. Patent owners believe this practice produces unjust results.

Finnegan attorney James R. Barney said, "This case involves the important question of who bears the burden of proving patentability or unpatentability of an amended claim during an IPR. This issue goes to the heart of the overall balance that Congress struck between the rights of petitioners and patentees in an IPR." As Aqua Products understands the statute, an amendment that does not broaden the scope of the original claims or add new matter should be entered early in the proceedings. After that, the petitioner can then try to satisfy the burden of providing that the substitute claims are unpatentable. Barney said, "This is the scheme that Congress created, and the PTO does not have the power under the Constitution to modify that scheme for want of a different policy outcome."

Tags

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Aqua Products v. Matal, claim amendments

Related Practices

特許庁における無効審判

PTABにおける無効手続:当事者系レビューおよび特許付与後レビュー

連邦巡回控訴裁判所および最高裁判所

Related Professionals

James R. Barney
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4412
Email

Related News

Commentary

How Litigation Funding Disclosure Could Affect ITC Cases

May 7 , 2026

Award/Ranking

Associates Rank Finnegan “Best of the Best” in BTI Associate Satisfaction Survey

May 7, 2026

Commentary

Justices to Side with Generic Drugmakers in Patent Spat, Attorneys Predict

May 5, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Wins IP Firm of the Year at the 2026 LSPN Awards

May 1, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Enhances Its German and European IP Practice with Björn Kalbfus

April 30, 2026

Commentary

Permanent Injunction Granted to USA Weightlifting Inc., Enjoining Use of Protected Marks

April 24, 2026

Press Release

BMW AG Announces Resolution of WDTX Declaratory Judgment against Onesta, Following Broad Covenant Not to Sue to BMW AG by Onesta

April 23, 2026

Commentary

Taylor Swift 'The Life of a Showgirl' Case Heads to Key May Hearing

April 22, 2026

Commentary

Fed. Circ. Ends Anti-Suit Injunction Appeal in BMW Case

April 20, 2026

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

  • プライバシー
  • 免責事項
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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