直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • 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

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

專利局受理之無效程序

專利審理暨訴願委員會受理之無效程序: 多方複審及核准後複審

Related Professionals

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

Related News

Media Mention

Law360's Legal Lions of the Week: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

August 21, 2026

Commentary

Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial

August 21, 2026

Media Mention

VW Wins in Patent Appeal Over Electrically Controlled Glasses

August 19, 2026

Commentary

Why Global IP Litigants Keep Turning to English Courts

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

Federal Circuit Backs Volkswagen’s $207,500 Fees Against NPE

August 19, 2026

Press Release

Federal Circuit Overrules Precedent En Banc in Finnegan Pro Bono Victory for Federally Employed Veterans

August 18, 2026

Commentary

Fed. Circ. Overrules Precedent on Veteran Hiring Protections

August 14, 2026

Award/Ranking

Fourteen Finnegan Attorneys Named to the 2026 IAM Strategy 300 List

August 13, 2026

Commentary

UK Patent Document Access Rules Raise Secrecy Concerns

August 12, 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