In
Claim 1 of the '747 patent recited the following:
1. A method for adjusting pressure within an air bed comprising:
providing or receiving an air bed, the air bed including an air chamber and a pump having a pump housing;
selecting a desired pressure setpoint for the air chamber;
determining an initial pressure within the pump housing;
calculating a pressure target based upon the desired pressure setpoint and a pressure adjustment factor, wherein an inflate pressure adjustment factor is used to calculate the pressure target when the initial pressure within the pump housing is less than the desired pressure setpoint, and wherein a deflate pressure adjustment factor is used to calculate the pressure target when the initial pressure within the pump housing is greater than the desired pressure setpoint;
adjusting pressure within the air chamber until a sensed pressure within the pump housing is substantially equal to the calculated pressure target;
determining an actual chamber pressure within the air chamber;
comparing the actual chamber pressure to the desired pressure setpoint to determine the adjustment factor error; and
modifying the pressure adjustment factor based upon the adjustment factor error.2
Claim 1 of the '154 patent was comparable.
American National submitted petitions for IPRs contesting various claims of the '747 and '154 patents. In its petitions, American National contended that the contested claims would have been obvious over Gifft (
In each IPR proceeding,
Before the Board, American National asserted that the proposed amendments did not reply to a ground of unpatentability and therefore were legally impermissible, and the claims were not enabled in view of a mistake in the specification. The Board discarded American National's arguments regarding the proposed amended claims and held that the amendments were appropriate because they addressed a ground of unpatentability, that the proposed amended claims were not unpatentable and that the specification was enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Board approved
Both parties appealed the Board's final written decisions, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. On appeal, American National contended that the Board mistakenly allowed
[N]othing in the America Invents Act (AIA) or the Board's regulations precludes a patent owner from amending a claim to both overcome an instituted ground and correct other perceived issues in the claim. The AIA explicitly restricts patent owner amendments in only two ways: amendments may not enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3). The Board's regulations add another restriction: amendments must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). . . . Thus, so long as a proposed claim amendment does not enlarge the scope of the claims, does not add new matter, and responds to a ground of unpatentability in the proceeding, the patent owner may also make additional amendments to a claim without running afoul of the relevant statutes and regulations.5
American National contended that permitting a patent owner to improve claims or rectify potential § 112 errors enables a patent owner and the Board to fix problems that are not proper for an IPR. The court was not convinced, because a petitioner can challenge the proposed amended claims on grounds outside §§ 102 and 103, including grounds under § 112. In fact, American National did challenge
The court noted that each of
Because each proposed substitute claim included at least one responsive narrowing limitation,
Accordingly, the court held that the Board did not err when it considered and entered
Takeaways and Tips
The Federal Circuit, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) and the Board continue to clarify amendment practice for IPRs. This decision clarifies amendment practice and specifically allows patent owners to include additional amendments so long as the proposed claims include amendments responding to an unpatentability ground. Previously, the Patent Office issued a pilot program concerning motions to amend (MTA) that enables a patent owner that files an MTA to request preliminary guidance from the Board on the MTA and whether to file a revised MTA.7 The program has been renewed recently.8
The
Patent owner litigants now have an additional weapon in their arsenal to use should their patents/inventions be subjected to IPR. Specifically, patent owners are free to further amend claims in a narrower manner so long as an amendment to that claim responds to a ground of unpatentability. This should provide additional help in leveling the playing field between patent owners and defendants during litigation because it should make defendants think carefully about whether the filing of an IPR has significant potential to damage their case of invalidity and/or noninfringement.
Footnotes
1. Am. Nat'l
2. Id., 52 F.4th at 1375-76.
3. Id., 52 F.4th at 1379.
4. Id., 52 F.4th at 1380.
5. Id., 52 F.4th at 1380 (citations omitted).
6. Id., 52 F.4th at 1381.
7. Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program Concerning Motion To Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84 Fed. Reg. 9497 (
8. Extension of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Motion To Amend Pilot Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 60134 (
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
NY 10036
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source