During yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Director Kappos explained the various initiatives ongoing at the USPTO with respect to AIA implementation, efforts to address drafting errors in the AIA, and backlog reduction efforts.
Toward the end of the hearing, Director Kappos was asked to justify the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in the new post grant proceedings. This same comment was earlier submitted to the USPTO by the major bar associations (for reasoning that has long escaped me). Director Kappos explained that the AIA requires the USPTO to assess patentability, not validity. In this way, the Agency is simply following the mandate of the legislation.
Shortly thereafter, the Director issued an expanded rationale on his blog. The Director correctly explained that:
. . . .[P]atent claims serve an important public notice function. An essential purpose of the broadest reasonable claim interpretation standard in the amendment process is to encourage an inventor to fashion clear, unambiguous claims. Patent owners in inter partes and post grant reviews will be afforded opportunities to amend their claims commensurate with their contribution to the art. Only through the use of the broadest reasonable claim interpretation standard can the Office ensure that uncertainties of claim scope are removed by the inventor. In contrast, patents before a district court are presumed valid with a heightened “clear and convincing” standard of proof to demonstrate invalidity. Consistent with this heightened presumption of validity—and as there is no opportunity to amend and resolve ambiguities—district courts construe claims to uphold validity. The Office however, is not so limited in its approach to claim interpretation, given its authority to amend patent claims.
Some have expressed a concern that applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard tointer partes and post grant reviews could lead to double standards between ongoing patent litigation and the Office’s reviews. The AIA however, addresses this concern. Specifically, the AIA imposes limitations on a petitioner’s ability to file a review when there is ongoing district court litigation, while providing time limits for the Office to complete its reviews. By placing limits on the filing and completion of the reviews, and encouraging coordination between the Office and district courts, the AIA provides improved mechanisms to avoid conflicts.
On the other hand, inconsistent results would become a major issue if the Office adopted a standard of claim construction other than the broadest reasonable interpretation for post-grant reviews. Specifically, the AIA contemplates that there will be multiple proceedings in the Office, and thus requires the Office to establish rules concerning the relationships between the various proceedings. For example, there may be an inter partes review of a patent that is also subject to an ex parte reexamination, where the patent is part of a family of co-pending applications all employing the same claim terminology. Major difficulties would arise where the Office is handling multiple proceedings with different claim construction standards applicable. In this world, the same amendment made in an inter partes review and a pending application could result in an allowance in one case and a rejection in the other. Or, the introduction of narrower language in a pending application and broader language in an inter partesreview could result in an allowance of the broader language and a rejection of the narrower language. Clearly, these examples and many others would produce bizarre results, unhelpful to patentees, applicants, the public, and the system.
To avoid the potential of having distinct alternative claim constructions for a claim term arising in the various proceedings before the Office and the inconsistent results flowing therefrom, the Office has chosen to continue to employ a single standard, the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, for proceedings before the Office. Continued use of the broadest reasonable claim interpretation will ensure the Office serves the patent community and makes full use of its resources in processing patent claims efficiently, effectively and consistently.
While we await the final rules packages for the PTAB proceedings, it is clear that the long standing use of BRI by the USPTO will not change.
Also of interest during the hearing, Senator Coburn made clear that any change to the estoppel of PGR would not qualify as a “technical ” change, but require full debate of all stakeholders. Other non-technical changes considered are in the areas of prior user rights and the definition of prior art under some of the revised 102 sections.