Claim Construction Changes from BRI to Phillips: Recent Proposal from USPTO


·  Recently, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a propose change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (The PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). 
·  The change would replace the current Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) standard with the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp. (415 F.3d 1303, Fed. Cir. 2005).  
·  This change would harmonize the claim construction standard applied in Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) patent proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the one used by federal district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).  
·  The proposed amendment would also allow the PTAB to consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the involved claim in a civil action, or an ITC proceeding, that is timely made of record in an AIA proceeding.

Reason for change in practice:
·  The current BRI standard used by PTAB which is different from the Phillips standard applied in federal district courts and the ITC. 
·  This can result in different constructions for the same or similar claim terms between federal district courts or the ITC, and PTAB panels in AIA post-grant proceedings.  
·  Applying the same standard in all proceedings will improve uniformity, predictability, and overall judicial efficiency.  
·  The USPTO’s proposed change also addresses concerns of potential unfairness resulting from using an arguably broader standard in AIA post-grant proceedings than is applied in federal courts or the ITC.

The USPTO's Goal: 
·  The goal is to implement a fair and balanced approach, providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system. 
·  Using the same claim construction standard as the standard applied in federal district courts would seek out the correct construction - the construction that most accurately delineates the scope of the claim invention under the framework laid out in Phillips.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delhi High Court Emphasizes the Importance of Claim Mapping in Patent Cases

Image
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Patent-claim-map-introducing-relationships-among-neighbouring-patents_fig1_285968399 On October 9, 2024, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of  Hoffmann-La Roche AG vs. Zydus Lifesciences Limited, emphasizing the critical concept of claim mapping in patent infringement cases, particularly when petitioning for interim injunctions. Key Points from the Ruling: 1. Definition of Claim Mapping: Claim mapping involves a detailed comparison between the claims outlined in a patent and the allegedly infringing product or process. This step is crucial to establish whether there is actual infringement. 2. Judicial Requirements for Injunctions: Justice Saurabh Banerjee articulated that to secure a temporary injunction, a patent holder must present evidence of not only a prima facie case and the balance of convenience but also successful claim mapping. This means the applicant must show that the infringing product is likely...
Read more

Novartis v. Natco_The abandonment of a divisional patent application does not render the parent patent unenforceable.

Image
(image credit:  livelaw.in ) Patent in suit : IN276026 (Novartis: Expiry:    20/05/2024) Molecule: Ceritinib Annual sale in India: 105,947,883 INR (As per Form 27, 2019) & 87,671 261,970,291 INR (2022-23: As per Form 27) Judgment Pronounced on : 9 April 2024. Conclusive Remark: The Delhi High Court has rejected the O39R4 application filed by the Defendant, NATCO, which sought to lift the injunction order in favor of the Plaintiff, Novartis. Interesting fact & remark of DHC : 1.      The Division application filed by Novartis was not rejected on its merits but because Novartis chose not to pursue the application. This decision does not prevent Novartis from contesting the validity of the patent challenged by the opponent. 2.      Even if the rejection of the division application were considered on its merits, the Controller's decision is not binding on the court. Upon independent analysis, the court has found...
Read more

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: changes in the realm of Intellectual Property laws.

Image
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 aims to decriminalize and rationalize various offences in different legislative enactments to foster trust-based governance and improve the ease of living and doing business in India. It introduces a structured revision of fines and penalties, increasing them by 10% every three years, and modifies specific sections across multiple laws to align with updated governance expectations. The Act's implementation reinforces the governmental commitment to creating a less punitive regulatory environment while maintaining the necessary accountability. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 decriminalizes and amends various provisions across different Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) legislations. Specifically, amendments regarding patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and copyright laws are being implemented through notifications issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on July 26 and July 29, 2024 which wil...
Read more