In a 6-5 decision, the en banc panel of the Federal Circuit denied Cuozzo’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the panel decision holding that the PTO did not err by applying the broadest reasonable standard in inter partes review proceedings (IPR). The dissent argues that the statute is silent and that the legislative history and case law is contrary to the panel’s outcome. According to the dissent, IPRs are a new, court-like proceeding designed to adjudicate the validity of issued patent claims and, in adjudicatory proceedings, claims are given their actual meaning, not their broadest reasonable interpretation. Judge Newman, in her separate dissent, voices the arguments of the amici curiae, many of whom stressed the need for uniform and certain patent laws given the large investments that they make in research and patenting. In response, the majority argues that nothing in the AIA indicates congressional intent to change the prevailing broadest reasonable interpretation standard and states that any change in the standard should be made by Congress.
In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2014-1301 (July 8, 2015); On Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Opinion concurring in the denial of the petition filed by Dyk, joined by Lourie, Chen, and Hughes; Opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition filed by Prost, joined by Newman, Moore, O’Malley, and Reyna; Opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition filed by Newman; Appealed From: USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Read the full opinion here.