Last week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, the U.S. Supreme Court largely refused to limit the power of the Patent Office to institute and regulate inter partes review proceedings. First, the Supreme Court held that parties generally may not appeal the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding whether to institute inter partes review, at least barring a clear constitutional question or abuse of statutory authority. The court also affirmed the PTAB’s use in inter partes review of the “broadest reasonable construction” (BRC) standard, which compared to the standard used in district court litigation makes it easier for parties to challenge patent validity.
The Cuozzo case is typical of the many patent infringement disputes that have arisen since inter partes review was introduced nearly four years ago. Cuozzo Speed Technologies owns a patent covering a speedometer that indicates when the driver exceeds the speed limit, and in 2012 filed several patent infringement lawsuits against automakers and their suppliers. One of those defendants, Garmin, filed an inter partes review petition requesting, among other grounds, that claim 17 of Cuozzo’s patent be invalidated as obvious. The PTAB instituted review not only of claim 17, but also of claims 10 and 14, from which claim 17 depended. After construing the term “integrally attached” under the BRC standard, the PTAB found all three claims unpatentable.
