Amendments

Subscribe to Amendments via RSS

The Board recently granted a motion to amend, to replace unpatentable claims with proposed substitute claims, a rare occurrence that may signal a change compelled by Aqua Products (summarized here). In Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC, Case No. IPR2016-01737 (PTAB March 13, 2018), the Board determined that all challenged claims were unpatentable and then granted the patent owner’s contingent motion to amend with respect to all proposed substitute claims.  Based on a USPTO study on motions to amend (see Graph III here), only four motions to amend substituting claims were granted in full before September 30, 2017, mere days before the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in Aqua Products.
Continue Reading Motion to Amend Substituting Claims Granted in Full, Possibly Reflecting the Change Wrought By Aqua Products

Student and Math Book

In Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., Dkt. No. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2017), Shinn Fu appealed the Board’s holding in IPR2015-00208 (discussed here), a rare case in which the PTAB granted a motion to amend, and determined that substitute claims 6-10 of USPN 6,681,897 were patentable.  The claims are drawn to methods of changing the wheels of vehicles on lifts without the operator having to bend while supporting the wheel.
Continue Reading PTAB Gets A Math Lesson

The PTAB’s Chief Administrative Patent Judge issued a memorandum on November 21, 2017, providing guidance on motions to amend in view of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussed here and here).  The court in Aqua Products determined that the Board could not the place burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of substitute claims on the patent owner.  The memorandum stated that the Board will determine whether substitute claims submitted in a motion to amend compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record, including any opposition made by the petitioner. 
Continue Reading Board Issues Guidance on Motions to Amend in View of Aqua Products

The Board’s recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.  The Board’s decision, granting patent owner’s motion to amend in part, should be considered in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which vacated the Board’s earlier disposition of the IPR and remanded the case to the Board to reconsider the substitute claims it previously denied.  These decisions offer at least a partial framework by which the PTAB may assess motions to amend during inter partes reviews.
Continue Reading Board Decision Grants Motion to Amend With Respect to One Substitute

As discussed here, the en banc Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, determining that the PTAB erred in placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner for proposed claim amendments. Four judges on the eleven-judge en banc panel dissented, and would have upheld the PTO’s rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.42(c), that places the burden of persuasion on the moving party, and agreed with the PTO that this rule applies to patent owners who move to amend claims during an IPR.
Continue Reading Aqua Products Dissent Would Keep Burden for Amendments on Patent Owners

An eleven-judge en banc panel of the Federal Circuit issued its long awaited decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal 2015-1777, on October 4, 2017, vacating and remanding the IPR final decision for the PTAB to determine whether the patent owner’s proposed amended claims are patentable. The court’s decision includes five separate opinions, though no majority opinion. The salient take-away, as Circuit Judge O’Malley’s opinion for a five-judge plurality concludes, is that “very little said over the course of the many pages that form the five opinions in this case has precedential weight.” 
Continue Reading Fractured Federal Circuit Reallocates Burden of Proof in AIA Trials

The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate.  The Act is an updated version of the STRONG Patents Act of 2015 that stalled in Congress.  Like its predecessor, the STRONGER Patents Act is designed to significantly modify the AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB.  Enactment of this Act would severely diminish the usefulness of AIA proceedings. 
Continue Reading Enactment of the STRONGER Patents Act Would Severely Limit PTAB Proceedings

In recent non-precedential decisions, Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 2015-2090 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016) (Micrografx I) and Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc. (Micrografx II), Case No. 2015-2091 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit upheld three IPR final written decisions canceling challenged claims of Micrografx patents for anticipation, and denying a motion to amend claims. The court determined that any errors in claim construction were harmless, and that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings of anticipation.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Cancellation of Micrografx Patent Claims for Anticipation

Illustration elegant wooden calendar on white background.

In considering a novel issue of Post-Grant Review (PGR) eligibility, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board followed the straightforward language of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), and longstanding precedent, holding that post-filing amendments to a pre-AIA patent application do not change its effective filing date and, thus, do not make it eligible for PGR.  David O.B.A. Adebimpe v. Doang-Trang T. Vu & The Johns Hopkins Univ., Case PGR2016-00020, Paper No. 14 (P.T.A.B. July 25, 2016).
Continue Reading Post-Filing Claim Amendments Don’t Change the Effective Filing Date for Post Grant Review

While the Federal Circuit has accepted, en banc, the question of what a patent owner must demonstrate to the Board to obtain leave to amend its claims in an IPR as discussed in our earlier blog post (In re Aqua Products, No. 2015-1177 petition for rehearing en banc granted, 2016 WL 4375651 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2016)), the court provided some guidance this week on what is not a sufficient basis for denying a motion to amend.
Continue Reading A Limit on the Board’s Power – Denial of Motion to Amend Claims was Unreasonable

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.