The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding; and (2) a party may not challenge, on appeal to the Federal Circuit, any part of the PTO’s decision to institute an IPR. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446. Both of these rulings eased the road for parties challenging patents in IPR cases.

THE BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION STANDARD -

The PTO has a long-established practice of construing claims in a patent or application according to their “broadest reasonable interpretation” when determining the claim’s patentability, as opposed to the “ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art” standard used in district court proceedings. The broadest reasonable interpretation arguably produces broader constructions that could make it easier to find a patent invalid. This difference has been justified in part because, during PTO proceedings, a patent owner or applicant generally has the opportunity to amend its claims to avoid a potentially broad invalidating construction. Thus, the Federal Circuit has upheld the PTO’s application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as reasonable.