Federal Circuit Emphasizes Reason In Application Of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

16 June 2016 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

As we wait for the Supreme Court decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, where the Court has been asked to decide whether the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) of claims during Inter Partes Review proceedings, the Federal Circuit has been providing guidance on how to apply the BRI standard. The court’s emphasis on the “reasonable” requirement of that standard is welcomed by practitioners who often find USPTO claim constructions to be unreasonably broad. 

The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard

In Cuozzo, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB rule adopting the BRI for IPR proceedings, 37 CFR § 42.100(b):

A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.

The court explained this standard most recently in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, where it gave this guidance:

SAS argues that because the Board’s construction is narrow, it cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term. This is not so. While we have endorsed the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in IPR proceedings, we also take care to not read “reasonable” out of the standard. This is to say that “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence, and must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” [Microsoft Corp. v.] Proxyconn, [Inc.], 789 F.3d [1292,] 1297 [(Fed. Cir. 2015)] ….

While the court was upholding the PTAB’s construction in that case, it encountered an unreasonable BRI in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC:

The Board seems to have arrived at its construction by referencing the dictionaries cited by the parties and simply selecting the broadest definition therein. And it does appear that among the many definitions contained in the dictionaries of record “in the immediate vicinity of; near” is the broadest. While such an approach may result in the broadest definition, it does not necessarily result in the broadest reasonable definition in light of the specification. The Board’s approach in this case fails to account for how the claims themselves and the specification inform the ordinarily skilled artisan as to precisely which ordinary definition the patentee was using.

On the other hand, it was the Petitioner who was seeking an unreasonably broad claim construction in  TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, and had to be reminded of these standards:

While the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give the Board an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for the full claim language and the written description. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding the Patent Office’s construction unreasonably broad because it was “unreasonable and inconsistent with the language of the claims and the specification”). Construing individual words of a claim without considering the context in which those words appear is simply not “reasonable.” Instead, it is the “use of the words in the context of the written description and customarily by those of skill in the relevant art that accurately reflects both the ‘ordinary’ and ‘customary’ meaning of the terms in the claims.” Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Taken together, this guidance indicates that the BRI may be the broadest interpretation that is consistent both with how a term is used (and defined) in the specification and how it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Challenging An Examiner’s BRI

While this guidance was given in the context of IPR proceedings, the Federal Circuit noted in Cuozzo “the long history of the PTO’s giving claims their broadest reasonable construction” in all types of proceedings, “including initial examinations.” Thus, this guidance should apply to a USPTO examiner’s claim construction. However, when an applicant disagrees with an examiner’s BRI, it often is more expedient to amend the claims–if an appropriate amendment can be made. Otherwise, the applicant’s only choice may be to pursue an expensive and lengthy appeal, and hope the PTAB agrees that the examiner’s claim construction was unreasonably broad, and that that error warrants reversal of the appealed rejection(s).

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services