Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLPU.S. Patent Office Retains Broad Power to Interpret Patent Claims

June 21, 2016

CUOZZO SPEED TECHS., LLC V. LEE, U.S., NO. 15-446, 6/20/16

The U.S. Supreme Court held the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s standard of using the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of patent claims in Inter Partes Review proceedings is proper. Why is this important? Because Inter Partes Review proceedings have been overwhelmingly used to try to invalidate patents under the BRI standard. In comparison, U.S. district courts interpret patent claims using an “ordinary meaning” standard, along with different burdens of proof, procedures and processes. The Supreme Court held Congress squarely put it within the power of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine the patent claim interpretation standard to be used in an Inter Partes Review proceeding. The Court further noted the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has used the BRI standard for more than 100 years and that standard protected the public from patent claims that are too broad thereby tying up too much knowledge and discouraging innovation.

Click here to get the U.S. Supreme Court's full decision. Calfee’s Intellectual Property Practice is one of the largest in Ohio and ranked by Chambers, BTI Consulting, US News and World Report, and Super Lawyers. Our IP Practice runs the gamut of technologies. Our IP practice has experience in all phases of patent disputes including litigation and Inter Partes Review proceedings.

Click here to learn more about Calfee’s Patent practice.  

Sign Up for Future First Alerts

For additional information and discussion on this topic, please get in touch with your regular Calfee contact or one of the attorneys listed below:   Ned Pejic  216.622.8835 npejic@calfee.com John S. Cipolla  216.622.8808 jcipolla@calfee.com   

This alert is provided by Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP for education and information purposes only. This alert is not intended to provide legal advice on specific subjects. The resolution of legal issues depends upon the specific facts of a particular situation and the laws involved and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This alert may be considered advertising under applicable laws. Some links within this alert may lead to web sites. Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP does not necessarily sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of the materials appearing in such sites. All trademarks and copyrighted material are the property of their respective owners and the use of such material in this alert, articles, or by Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP is for informational purposes only and does not indicate sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark or copyright holder of either Calfee or the content of this alert.