No. 15-446
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICHELLE K. LEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
`DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Writ Of CertiOrari tO the United StateS COUrt
`Of appealS fOr the federal CirCUit
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE UNIFIED
`PATENTS INC. IN SUPPORT OF
`RESPONDENT
`
`KevIn JaKel
`Jonathan Stroud
`Shawn ambwanI
`unIfIed PatentS Inc.
`2 North 1st Street, 5th Floor
`San Jose, California 95113
`(650) 999-0899
`
`Scott a. mcKeown
`Counsel of Record
`StePhen G. KunIn
`Jeffrey I. frey
`oblon, mcclelland, maIer
` & neuStadt, l.l.P.
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`(703) 412-6297
`smckeown@oblon.com
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`265039
`
`A
`
`(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`I .
`
`
`
`Inter partes review (IPR) procedures
`are a refinement of patent examination
`and reexamination processes all using
`the BRI standard, which have for more
`than a century sought to improve patent
`quality, thus reducing problematic district
`court patent litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`A . IPR is an administrative proceeding
`not intended to replace litigation in
`district court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`
`
`B. IPR is a refinement of an earlier PTO
`post-grant procedure, inter partes
`reexaminations, which construed
`claims using the broadest reasonable
`interpretation (BRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`ii
`
`II . Amendment is not more limited in IPRs than
`in other post-grant procedures, even in other
`adjudicative proceedings, and post-grant
`amendment is available by other routes at the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) . . . . .14
`
`
`
`A . C l a i m s m a y b e m o d i f i e d i n
`reexamination proceedings, which,
`like IPR, are post-grant proceedings at
`the PTO that allow limited amendment,
`and use BRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`
`
`B . Interference proceedings, which
`a r e a djud ic at or y p r o c e e d i n g s
`at the PTO that allow amendment
`(and on which IPR procedure was
`based), use BRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`
`
`C . Patent reissue is a post-grant proceeding
`that likewise allows patentees to
`amend claims, and uses BRI . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`
`
`D . Many factors have contributed to
`the limited number of amendments
`made to date in IPRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`
`
`III . When properly applied, the standards
`of construction in the PTO and in the
`courts are paths to the same result . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`iii
`
`A . Because the PTAB properly applied
`the BRI standard, Petitioner received
`the “plain and ordinar y” claim
`interpretation it seeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`
`
`B . T he P TO recog n i zes that BRI
`and “plain and ordinary meaning”
`are not alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
`
`
`
`C . The U . S . Cour t of Appeals for
`the Federal Ci rcuit recog nizes
`that BRI and “plain and ordinary
`meaning” are not alternatives . . . . . . . . . . .24
`
`
`
`D . Factors other than BRI can result in
`differences in claim construction in
`the PTO and in the courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
`
`
`
`E . Cla i m constr uction procedu res
`under the PTAB and in the courts
`differ only inconsequentially . . . . . . . . . . . .27
`
`
`
`IV . Congress assumed BRI would continue to
`be used by the PTO in post-grant patent
`proceedings, as shown by the specific
`statute of the AIA it promulgated, to
`avoid claim-construction gamesmanship
`by patentees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`iv
`
`CASES
`
`American Hoist and Derrick Company v.
`Sowa & Sons Inc.,
`725 F .2d 1350 (Fed . Cir . 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 25
`
`
`
`Bamberg v. Dalvey,
` No . 2015-1548 (Fed . Cir . March 9, 2016) . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Bamberger v. Cheruvu,
`
`55 U .S .P .Q .2d 1523 (B .P .A .I . 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00016, Paper No . 31
`
`(PTAB December 11, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00036, Paper No . 64
`
`(PTAB Jan . 21, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`Chevron, USA, Inc. v.
`Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
`467 U .S . 837 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25, 26
`
`
`
`COMMIL USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`135 S . Ct . 1920 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`
`126 S . Ct . 1837 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`v
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`
`849 F .2d 1422 (Fed . Cir . 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
`
`In re Cortright,
`
`165 F .3d 1353 (Fed . Cir . 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
`
`In re: Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`793 F .3d 1268 (Fed . Cir . 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`Lacavera v. Dudas,
`
`441 F .3d 1380 (Fed . Cir . 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`
`163 F .3d 1342 (Fed . Cir . 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
`
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D
`Asia, LLC v. RealD Inc.,
`IPR2015-00040 (PTAB July 15, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . .20
`
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`
`347 F .3d 1367 (Fed . Cir . 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership,
`
`131 S . Ct . 2242 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F .3d 1292 (Fed . Cir . 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
`
`Miel v. Young,
`
`29 App . D .C . 481 (D .C . Cir . 1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`vi
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp .,
`
`334 F .3d 1314 (Fed . Cir . 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp .,
`415 F .3d 1303 (Fed . Cir . 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`
`Podlesak v. McInnerney,
`
`1906 Dec . Comm’r Pat . 265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
` No . 2015-1631 (Fed . Cir . Feb . 5, 2016) . . . . . . . . 24, 25
`
`Wnek v. Dobbs,
`
`85 U .S .P .Q .2d 1159 (BPAI 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc .,
`
`IPR 2013-00136, Paper 33 (PTAB Nov . 7, 2013) . . .19
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U .S .C . § 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
`
`35 U .S .C . § 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 17
`
`35 U .S .C . § 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
`
`35 U .S .C . § 282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`35 U .S .C . § 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 28, 30
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`vii
`
`35 U .S .C . § 302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`35 U .S .C . § 305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`35 U .S .C . § 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`35 U .S .C . § 307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`35 U .S .C . § 311 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`35 U .S .C . §§ 312–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`35 U .S .C . § 314 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`35 U .S .C . § 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
`
`35 U .S .C . § 316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13, 14, 29
`
`35 U .S .C . § 317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`35 U .S .C . § 325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`35 U .S .C . § 326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Act of July 4, 1836, ch . 357, § 8, 5 Stat . 120 . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Pub . L . 106-113, 113 Stat . 1501A-571, § 4606 (1999) . . .12
`
`Pub . L . 96-517, 94 Stat . 3016, § 1 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . 11-12
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`viii
`
`Pub . L . No . 112-29, 125 Stat . 284 (2011) . . . . . . . . passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`157 Cong . Rec. H4496 (daily ed . June 23, 2011) . . . . . . . .3
`
`157 Cong . Rec . S1097 (daily ed . Mar . 2, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen . Hatch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9-10
`
`157 Cong . Rec . S1375 (daily ed . Mar . 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen . Kyl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 30
`
`157 Cong . Rec . S5326 (daily ed . Sep . 6, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen . Leahy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 9
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae 3M Co. et. al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae New York Intellectual
` Property Law Association, No . 15-446 . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae of Pharmaceutical
` Research and Manufacturers of America . . . . . . . .17
`
`C o m m e n t s o f D i r e c t o r o f t h e USP T O
` Michelle K. Lee, March 27, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
`
`Determining Patentability of a Claim in a
`Patent Application, 2008 ABA SeC. Intell.
` ProP. l. reP. 108-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`ix
`
`H .R . Rep . No . 112-98 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 13
`
`James Bessen and Michael J . Meurer, The
`Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, 99 Cornell
` L . Rev . 387 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
`
`Laura Whitworth, What’s in a Claim?: The
`Importance of Uniformity in Patent Claim
`Construction Standards, 98 J . PAt. & trAdemArk
` off. SoC’y 21 (to be published, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111 . . . . . .16
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2260 . . . . . .15
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2272 . . . . . .16
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2672 . . . . . .16
`
`Mark Consilivo & Jonathan Stroud, Unraveling the
`USPTO’s Tangled Web: An Empirical Analysis
`of the Complex World of Post-Issuance Patent
` Proceedings, 21 J. Intell. ProP. l. 1 (2013) . . . . . . .11
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed .
` Reg . 48764 (Aug . 14, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
`
`U .S . Patent & Trademark Office, AIA Trial
` Statistics—February 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`x
`
`Patent Reexamination: Hearing on S . 1679
`Before the S . Comm . on the Judiciary,
`96th Cong . 15–16 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Statistics, 1/31/2016 . .14
`
`Pauline M . Pelletier, The Impact of Local
`Patent Rules on Rate and Timing of Case
`Resolution Relative to Claim Construction:
`A n E m p i r i c a l S t u d y o f t h e P a s t
` Decade, 8 J. BuS. & teCh. l. 451 (2013) . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`Peter S . Menell, Matthew D . Powers, and Steven C .
`Carlson, Patent Claim Construction: A Modern
` Synthesis and Structured Framework . . . . . . . . . . .28
`
`PTO Report to Congress On Inter Partes
` Reexamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 13
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials Before the PTAB,
`
`77 Fed . Reg . 48648 (Aug . 14, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`Trimble, Marketa, “The Impact of “Patent Trolls” on
`Patent Law and the Legal Landscape of the United
` States” (2009) . Scholarly Works . Paper 561 . . . . . . . .3
`
`RULES
`
`37 C .F .R . § 1 .75(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`xi
`
`37 C .F .R . § 1 .116(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`37 C .F .R . § 42 .20(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`37 C .F .R . § 42 .100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21, 24, 28
`
`37 C .F .R . § 42 .121(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`37 C .F .R . § 41 .121(a)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`37 C .F .R . § 42 .122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`37 C .F .R . § 41 .208(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`1
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST
`
`Unified Patents Inc . is a member organization
`dedicated to deterring non-practicing entities, or
`NPEs, from using extortive litigation tactics to extract
`settlements from operating companies based on patents
`that are likely invalid before the district courts and
`unpatentable before the patent office.1 Unified’s more
`than 110 members are Fortune 500 companies, small
`technology start-ups, automakers, industry groups, and
`others dedicated to reducing the unnecessary drain on
`the US economy of the now-routine baseless litigations
`asserting infringement of broad patents of dubious validity
`and patentability. Unified challenges patents, fighting
`NPEs and helping to reduce the costs companies incur
`fighting off their many dozens of annual NPE litigations.
`
`Unified seeks to advance public policies that foster
`competition and innovation by encouraging operating
`companies to invest in commercializing technology .
`Unfortunately, many companies are forced to spend many
`millions of dollars in legal fees fighting off or licensing
`baseless patent lawsuits brought by NPEs . Those NPEs
`seek to exploit a severe imbalance in the cost of district
`court patent litigation, 44% of which was before just one
`district court, the Eastern District of Texas, in 2015 .
`
`1 . This brief is filed with the written consent of all parties
`through letters of consent on file with the Clerk. No counsel for
`any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person
`or entity other than amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel
`made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or
`submission .
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`2
`
`To those ends, Unified seeks to remove barriers to
`cost-effective validity and patentability determinations
`and to reduce the leverage afforded by the expense of
`district court patent litigation . To date, inter partes
`reviews (IPRs) have provided operating companies with
`timely and cost-effective patentability determinations,
`increasing certainty and dramatically reducing the costs
`of baseless litigations. Over 4,000 IPR petitions were filed
`in just under three and a half years, demonstrating that
`operating companies have whole-heartedly embraced
`them and use them in challenging the patentability of
`patents of questionable validity . Many of the members
`of the other amicus organizations arguing against the
`tribunal’s fairness and claim construction standard here
`have nonetheless themselves taken advantage of the forum
`and the claim construction standard when appropriate for
`their individual business interests .
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA) 2
`primarily to rescue American industry from the well-
`documented problem of lopsided, costly, often questionable
`patent lawsuits asserting low-quality patents . To address
`patent quality, Congress created, among other things,
`IPRs . IPRs allow interested parties to avail themselves
`of agency expertise—that of the United States Patent &
`Trademark Office (“PTO”)—to fast-track reconsideration
`of issued patent claims based on evidence and arguments
`not previously considered by the PTO .3
`
`2 . Pub . L . No . 112-29, 125 Stat . 284 (2011) .
`
`3 . 35 U .S .C . §§ 312–16; § 325(d) .
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`3
`
`Prior to the AIA, some patentees were suing many
`dozens of companies in single lawsuits, asserting that low-
`quality patent claims, often of amorphous scope, covered
`some public, critical technology common to an entire
`industry .4 Notably, major changes in the law in the 2000s
`meant many patents had been issued on technologies that
`“should never be patented .”5 At the time Congress was
`debating and passing the AIA, the patent bar was hotly
`debating patent claim construction in other contexts .6 But
`Congress actively chose to endorse and leave in place the
`PTO’s “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) claim
`construction—the logical and just choice continuing 100
`years of PTO practice .
`
`4 . See, e.g., Trimble, Marketa, “The Impact of “Patent Trolls”
`on Patent Law and the Legal Landscape of the United States” (2009) .
`Scholarly Works . Paper 561, available at http://scholars.law.unlv.
`edu/facpub/561.
`
`5 . Representative Joseph Crowley, in debating the AIA and
`urging its passage, described a patent claiming a method “soliciting
`charitable contributions on the Internet” asserted against the Red
`Cross, concluding that “[t]hese patents, and many others in this
`space, are not legitimate patents that help advance America . They
`are nuisance patents used to sue legitimate businesses and nonprofit
`business organizations like the Red Cross or any other merchants
`who engage in normal activity that should never be patented .” 157
`Cong. reC . H4496 (daily ed . June 23, 2011); see also 157 Cong. Rec.
`S5326 (daily ed . Sep . 6, 2011) (statement of Sen . Leahy) (noting IPRs
`were introduced “to weed out recently issued patents that should not
`have been issued in the first place.”) 157 Cong. Rec. S1097 (daily ed .
`Mar . 2, 2011) (statement of Sen . Hatch) (similar comments) .
`
`6 . See, e.g., Determining Patentability of a Claim in a Patent
`Application, 2008 ABA SeC. Intell. ProP. l. reP. 108-3 .
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`4
`
`The Patent Office has used BRI procedures,
`under law and regulation, for more than a century, in
`examination, reexamination, reissue, on appeal, and in
`every patentability procedure the patent office conducts,7
`based on a lack of a presumption of validity and because
`the Office reviews patentability, not invalidity . 8 The
`AIA’s Congressional proponents explicitly assumed the
`PTO would adopt BRI .9 Aside from different names, the
`Petitioner has not identified any substantive difference
`in the claim construction methods—as none exists . Yet
`Appellant attempts to side-step this century of PTO
`history, Congressional intent, and Board rulemaking,
`ignoring the fact that the very starting point for any BRI
`analysis is, as it is under the district court standard, the
`“plain meaning .” Petitioner seeks instead to silence the
`
`7 . Podlesak v. McInnerney, 1906 Dec . Comm’r Pat . 265, 258 .
`(“[n]o better method of construing claims is perceived than to give
`them in each case the broadest interpretation which they will support
`without straining the language in which they are couched .”): Miel
`v. Young, 29 App . D .C . 481, 484 (D .C . Cir . 1907) (“This claim should
`be given the broadest interpretation which it will support .”) .
`
`8 . A patent is presumed “valid” unless overcome by clear
`and convincing evidence before a district court, in deference to the
`issuing agency’s expertise . Meanwhile, a petitioner’s burden before
`the Office is limited to proving “unpatentability” by a preponderance
`of the evidence, as the patent is not presumed valid before the agency
`that issued it . Compare 35 U .S .C . § 282(a) and § 326(e) .
`
`9 . For example, Senator Kyl stated that a purpose of the new
`§ 301(a)(2) was to “allow the Office to identify inconsistent statements
`made about claim scope—for example, cases where a patent owner
`successfully advocated a claim scope in district court that is broader
`than the “broadest reasonable construction” that he now urges in an
`inter partes review .” 157 Cong . Rec . S1375 (daily ed . Mar . 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen . Kyl) .
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`5
`
`expert agency’s technically trained assessment of claim
`meaning in favor of a district court claim construction
`standard it believes will be more favorable to costly
`litigation efforts .
`
`These outcome-independent complaints are nothing
`but a proxy for a deeper dissatisfaction with the new
`administrative system for being, at core, too competent at
`cutting short questionable and costly litigation. By finally
`forcing these parties to spend money to defend their
`questionable assets rather than proceeding lopsidedly
`in district court under zero-down contingency counsel
`agreements, and by providing quicker expert review of
`patentability of patent claims that might not have been
`granted were they considered today, IPRs have brought a
`sorely needed balance back to the uneven settlement math
`often exploited in patent cases . The complaints aired here
`by Petitioner stem from a deeper desire to return to the
`more lucrative system that came before .
`
`The phrase “broadest reasonable interpretation”
`describes the same procedure applied in both the PTO and
`by the courts . In both venues, claims must be construed
`consistent with the specification as understood by a person
`of ordinary skill in the art, and the starting point for either
`forum’s construction is the plain and ordinary meaning of
`the claims . See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp ., 415 F .3d
`1303, 1316 (Fed . Cir . 2005); Manual of Patent Examination
`Procedure (MPEP) § 2111. While the PTO and courts have
`occasionally differed in their claim constructions, those
`few differences are a reflection of, among other factors,
`the technical insight of the expert agency—and the limited
`judicial authority with which it has been bestowed . The
`Article I administrative law judges of the PTO’s Patent
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`6
`
`Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) are technically and legally
`trained scientists and engineers that have practiced patent
`law, and most importantly, they are chosen to be capable
`of independently assessing a technical truth .10
`
`Unlike the district courts, the PTAB is not picking
`a winner in a contested proceeding between two parties .
`It is not a battle of two claim constructions—that is, if an
`accused infringer argues an overly narrow construction
`to avoid infringement, the patentee’s construction (likely
`argued to avoid invalidity) does not win by default; instead
`the technical truth—as determined by the originally
`issuing agency—rules the day . The PTAB seeks the
`true construction of the claims, often disagreeing with
`both parties and issuing what it believes is the true
`construction .
`
`Thus, while the PTAB and its fast-track IPRs may
`have been disruptive for litigants relying on the costly
`vagaries of district court patent litigation as a business
`model—and those parties may complain when an agency
`quickly arrives at an answer and puts an end to their legal
`leverage—Congress sought to legislate an end to that bad
`business with the AIA .
`
`An unforeseen consequence of changing the PTO’s
`claim interpretation practices would be to allow a patentee
`in possession of an earlier district court claim construction
`
`10 . The administrative patent judges of the PTAB are generally
`skilled in a relevant technical art, required to have at least a four-
`year degree in engineering, chemistry, or biology, or the equivalent .
`https://www .usajobs .gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/406508200 . See also
`American Hoist and Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc.,725 F .2d
`1350, 1359 (Fed . Cir . 1984) .
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`7
`
`to wall off the expert agency from doing its own thorough
`technical assessment .11 Such a result would undermine
`Congress’s goal of culling improvidently granted patents
`from the litigation landscape .12 Because claim construction
`is done using the same procedural guidelines in both the
`PTO and the courts under these standards, the phrase
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” is but a sideshow
`highlighted here, masking its true purpose—as a vehicle
`for a broader indictment of the new system . This Court
`should not, as Congress did not, disturb the PTO’s
`longstanding claim interpretation practices .
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`I . The new IPR challenge proceedings were built on
`patent examination and reexamination before the
`PTO, and have used the BRI standard for claim
`
`11 . It is especially critical to the success of the AIA that the
`expert agency’s review of these patents not be hamstrung by previous
`imprecision (or unnecessary exegesis) in claim construction .
`
`12 . Note that, in 2,871 cases studied for the period 2000-2010,
`it took about twenty-two months to receive a court’s construction .
`Pauline M . Pelletier, The Impact of Local Patent Rules on Rate
`and Timing of Case Resolution Relative to Claim Construction:
`An Empirical Study of the Past Decade, 8 J. BuS. & teCh. l. 451
`(2013), available at http://digitalcommons .law .umaryland .edu/jbtl/
`vol8/iss2/5 . As the PTAB panels generally provide a preliminary,
`nonbinding claim construction within about 6 months of filing of a
`petition challenging patentability, only those patents litigated prior
`to passage of the AIA are likely to have a construction that is first in
`time . 35 U .S .C . § 314(b) . Note that, should the standards applied in
`both the PTAB and district court be the same, the PTAB will quite
`be forced to issue claim construction positions first, positions that
`may conflict with later district court rulings.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`8
`
`interpretation for more than a century . Congress
`sought to raise the level of patent quality by creating
`an expedited reassessment and amendment procedure
`for questionable issued patents . In passing the AIA,
`Congress felt that administrative review of issued
`patents would result in greater certainty about both
`the validity and the meaning of a patent’s claims,
`thus rebalancing the lopsided district court litigation
`then taxing U .S . innovation . Changing the claim
`interpretation standard, even in name only, is really
`an attempt to prevent the agency from ruling in those
`cases (such as this one) where an earlier district court
`construction resulted in erroneous exegesis .
`
`II . Petitioner greatly exaggerates the practical realities
`of “defending” patents in IPR . Amendment is no less
`“free” and no more iterative in IPRs than in patent
`reexamination, reissue, or interference, which are
`other post-grant PTO proceedings allowing claim
`amendment . Patent interference is, like an IPR, an
`adjudicative PTO proceeding applying BRI, and in
`which amendment is by motion, nearly identical to
`IPR . Petitioner cannot dispute that, as in patent
`interference, amendments are available at the PTAB .
`
`III . When properly applied, the PTAB and district court
`claim constructions are procedural paths to the
`same destination . Construction in district court and
`in the PTAB is doctrinally indistinguishable: both
`constructions begin with the plain and ordinary
`meaning of claim terms, and both are performed in
`the context of the patent specification as understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art . With the
`same procedures properly applied, any differences
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2012
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2053
`Samsung v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00222
`
`

`

`9
`
`between court and PTAB claim constructions are
`the result of differences in procedure, evidentiary
`standards, presumption of validity, or the perspective
`and authority of the adjudicator in differing venues .
`To make the standards identical would be to imbue
`and Article I tribunal with Article III powers .
`
`IV . Congress assumed BRI would be used by the PTO
`in post-grant patent proceedings, as shown by the
`text of the AIA statute promulgated to avoid claim-
`construction gamesmanship by patentees .
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Inter partes review (IPR) procedures are a refinement
`of patent examination and reexamination processes
`all using the BRI standard, which have for more
`than a century sought to improve patent quality,
`thus re