A Closer Look at Claim Construction in IPR and CBM
March 7, 2016
The US Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, a case focused on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) inter partes review (IPR) process. RPX has taken a look at the statistics underpinning one of the two issues the court must decide in the matter: which standard the PTAB should use for claim interpretation. The petitioner in the case argues against the PTAB’s primary standard—called BRI, for “broadest reasonable interpretation”— and claims that BRI makes IPRs more effective at challenging patents than they would be under the other standard, known as Phillips, which is used in district court.
However, based on our analysis of more than 4,000 petitions for IPR or covered business method review (CBM), we find that outcomes at the PTAB are similar, regardless of which claim interpretation standard is applied in that forum: 78% of institution decisions under BRI and 70% under Phillips instituted at least one claim for review. So are final outcomes, with 89% of final decisions under BRI and 97% under Phillips ruling at least one claim unpatentable.
Our white paper on the topic, A Closer Look at Claim Construction in IPR and CBM, provides further data and analysis. Questions and comments are welcome at reports@rpxcorp.com.