[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18750-18766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07381]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 42

[Docket No. PTO-P-2015-0053]
RIN 0651-AD01


Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the existing consolidated set of rules 
relating to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or 
USPTO) trial practice for inter partes review (``IPR''), post-grant 
review (``PGR''), the transitional program for covered business method 
patents (``CBM''), and derivation proceedings that implemented 
provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (``AIA'') providing 
for trials before the Office.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective May 2, 2016 and applies 
to all AIA petitions filed on or after the effective date and to any 
ongoing AIA preliminary proceeding or trial before the Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. C. Mitchell, Lead 
Administrative Patent Judge, by telephone at (571) 272-9797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Executive Summary: Purpose: This final rule amends the existing 
consolidated set of rules relating to the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) trial practice for IPR, PGR, CBM, 
and derivation proceedings that implemented provisions of the AIA 
providing for trials before the Office, by allowing new testimonial 
evidence to be submitted with a patent owner's preliminary response, 
adding a Rule 11-type certification for papers filed in a proceeding, 
allowing a claim construction approach that emulates the approach used 
by a district court following Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (hereinafter ``a Phillips-type or district court-type 
construction approach'') for claims of patents that will expire before 
entry of a final written decision, and replacing the current page limit 
with a word count limit for major briefing.
    Summary of Major Provisions: In an effort to gauge the 
effectiveness of the rules governing AIA trials, the Office conducted a 
nationwide listening tour in April and May of 2014, and in June 2014, 
published a Federal Register Notice asking for public feedback about 
the AIA trial proceedings. The Office has reviewed carefully the 
comments and, in response to public input, already has issued a first, 
final rule, which was published on May 19, 2015. That final rule 
addressed issues concerning the patent owner's motion to amend, the 
petitioner's reply brief, and other various changes. For instance, the 
final rule provided ten additional pages for a patent owner's motion to 
amend, allowed a claims appendix for a motion to amend, and provided 
ten additional pages for a petitioner's reply brief, in addition to 
other changes to conform the rules to the Office's established 
practices in handling AIA proceedings.
    The Office published a second, proposed rule on August 20, 2015, 
which addressed more significant proposed changes to the rules and 
proposed revisions to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The 
Office received comments from the public on these proposed rules, and 
presents in this Federal Register document the following final rules to 
address the claim construction standard for AIA

[[Page 18751]]

trials involving soon-to-be expired patents, new testimonial evidence 
submitted with a patent owner's preliminary response, Rule 11-type 
certification, and word count for major briefing. The Office will also 
amend its Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to comport with these 
rules changes and to reflect developments in practice before the Office 
concerning how the Office handles additional discovery, live testimony, 
and confidential information.
    The Office anticipates that it will continue to refine the rules 
governing AIA trials to continue to ensure fairness and efficiency 
while meeting all congressional mandates. Therefore, the Office 
continues to encourage comments concerning how the rules may be refined 
to achieve this goal.
    Also, the Office is continuing to pro-actively seek ways to enhance 
its operations and explore alternative approaches that might improve 
its handling of post grant administrative trials. As part of this 
process, the Office published in the Federal Register a Request for 
Comments on a Proposed Pilot Program pertaining to the institution and 
conduct of the post grant administrative trials by a single judge to 
provide the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Proposed 
Pilot Program Exploring an Alternative Approach to Institution 
Decisions in Post Grant Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 51540 (Aug. 25, 
2015) (``Proposed Pilot Program''). The Office currently has a panel of 
three administrative patent judges (APJs) decide whether to institute a 
trial, and then typically has the same three-APJ panel conduct the 
trial, if instituted. The Office sought comments on whether to conduct 
a pilot program under which the determination of whether to institute a 
trial would be made by a single APJ, with two additional APJs being 
assigned if a trial was instituted. This public announcement of the 
proposed pilot program sought to elicit comments, including whether a 
single APJ institution could potentially improve efficiency while 
providing high quality decisions and fairness to all sides.
    In response to the Request for Comments, the Office received 
eighteen written submissions from intellectual property organizations, 
associations, businesses, law firms, patent practitioners, and others. 
The majority of comments opposed the proposed pilot program; however, 
several comments supported modified pilot programs. The Office 
appreciates receiving the comments, and has considered and analyzed 
them. Taking into account the comments received, the Office has decided 
not to go forward with the proposed pilot program at this time.
    Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically 
significant, and is not significant, under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 
30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and 
Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).

Background

Development of the Final Rules

    On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-
29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)), and within one year, the Office implemented 
rules to govern Office trial practice for AIA trials, including IPR, 
PGR, CBM, and derivation proceedings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135, 316 and 
326 and AIA 18(d)(2). See Rules of Practice for Trials Before the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board Decisions, 77 FR 48612 (Aug. 14, 2012); Changes to 
Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review 
Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method 
Patents, 77 FR 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012); Transitional Program for Covered 
Business Method Patents--Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent 
and Technological Invention, 77 FR 48734 (Aug. 14, 2012). Additionally, 
the Office published a Patent Trial Practice Guide for the rules to 
advise the public on the general framework of the regulations, 
including the structure and times for taking action in each of the new 
proceedings. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 FR 48756 (Aug. 
14, 2012).
    In an effort to gauge the effectiveness of these rules governing 
AIA trials, the Office conducted a nationwide listening tour in April 
and May of 2014. During the listening tour, the Office solicited 
feedback on how to make the trial proceedings more fair and effective 
by adjusting the rules and guidance where necessary. To elicit even 
more input, in June of 2014, the Office published a Request for 
Comments in the Federal Register and, at stakeholder request, extended 
the period for receiving comments to October 16, 2014. See Request for 
Comments on Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 79 FR 36474 (June 27, 2014). The Office 
addressed all public comments that involved changes to the page 
limitations for a patent owner's motion to amend or a petitioner's 
reply brief in a first, final rulemaking. See Amendments to the Rules 
of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 80 FR 
28561 (May 19, 2015). The Office addressed the remaining comments in 
the second, proposed rulemaking. See Amendments to the Rules of 
Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 80 FR 
50720 (Aug. 20, 2015).
    In the second, proposed rulemaking, the Office sought comments on 
the proposed rules involving the application of a Phillips-type claim 
construction for patents expiring during a proceeding, the ability to 
submit new testimonial evidence in the patent owner preliminary 
response, a Rule 11-type certification for papers filed in a 
proceeding, and word count for major briefing. The Office received 
twenty-eight comments from bar associations, corporations, law firms, 
and individuals addressing the proposed rules. Many of the comments 
supported application of a Phillips-type construction for claims of a 
patent that will expire during an AIA proceeding, a patent owner's 
ability to submit new testimonial evidence in its preliminary response, 
word count for major briefing, and a Rule-11 type certification. The 
Office appreciates the thoughtful comments provided by the public, 
which are available on the USPTO Web site: http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/comments-amendments-rules-practice-trials. The Office addresses all of the 
comments on the proposed rules below.

Claim Construction Standard

    In the proposed rules, the Office noted that the application of a 
Phillips-type claim construction for claims of a patent that will 
expire prior to the issuance of a final written decision is 
appropriate. 80 FR at 50722. For these patents, the Office proposed to 
apply a Phillips-type standard during the proceeding. Id. The Office 
asked a series of questions to elicit comments concerning when to apply 
a Phillips-type construction. For instance, the Office asked: Should 
the Office set forth guidelines where a petitioner may determine, 
before filing a petition, which claim construction approach will be 
applied by the Office based on the relevant facts? Should the 
petitioner who believes that the subject patent will expire prior to 
issuance of a final written decision be required to submit claim 
interpretation analysis under both a Phillips-type and broadest 
reasonable interpretation approaches or state that either approach 
yields the same result? Should the Office entertain briefing after a 
petition is filed, but before a patent owner preliminary response is 
filed, concerning what standard should be applied? Id. The Office also 
invited

[[Page 18752]]

comments on any workable and efficient solutions for scenarios where 
the patent owner chooses to forgo the right to amend claims in an AIA 
proceeding. Id.
    The Office has considered carefully the comments and determined to 
permit either party to request by motion a Phillips-type construction 
if a party certifies that the patent will expire within eighteen months 
from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. A 
request by either party for a Phillips-type construction must be done 
by motion, triggering a conference call with the panel to discuss the 
request to resolve whether such a motion is appropriate under the 
circumstances and whether any other briefing is necessary for each 
party to be able to address adequately the appropriate construction 
standard. For instance, petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to 
address a Phillips-type construction analysis before patent owner is 
required to file its preliminary response.
    Comment 1: As to the claim construction standard the Office uses 
generally in AIA trial proceedings, many commenters support the 
Office's continued application of the broadest reasonable 
interpretation standard to ensure higher quality patents by encouraging 
more definitive claim drafting, clarifying intended claim scope, and 
providing a better notice function to the public. Other commenters 
asserted that because a small number of motions to amend have been 
granted, the Office should apply a Phillips-type construction in all 
AIA proceedings. These commenters stated that AIA proceedings are meant 
to be adjudicative; therefore, a differing standard akin to a district 
court claim construction analysis is appropriate and in the interest of 
justice. These commenters also assert that neither the difference 
between ``patentability'' and ``validity,'' nor the canon of 
construction calling for preservation of validity as applied in 
district court, necessitates the application of a broadest reasonable 
interpretation standard in an AIA proceeding. Also, these commenters 
asserted that because the majority of patents involved in inter partes 
reviews are also in parallel litigation with a route of appeal to the 
same reviewing court, using a differing standard for claim construction 
could lead to inconsistent outcomes, and therefore, is inappropriate.
    Response: The Office continues to agree with the comments that 
stated that applying the broadest reasonable interpretation for a claim 
is consistent with the Office's long-standing practice in post-issuance 
proceedings and encourages clear and unambiguous claim drafting. The 
Office notes that this standard also promotes consistency across all 
reexaminations, reissues, and AIA proceedings involving the same patent 
or family of patents before the Office. The Office disagrees that no 
reasonable opportunity to amend exists, as some comments argued based 
solely on the number of amendments permitted to date. The Federal 
Circuit has stated, ``[a]lthough the opportunity to amend is cabined in 
the IPR setting, it is thus nonetheless available,'' and specifically 
addressed the prohibition on post-issuance broadening of claims at 
issue in the case, further stating that at least this restriction on 
motions to amend ``does not distinguish pre-IPR processes or undermine 
the inferred congressional authorization of the broadest reasonable 
interpretation standard in IPRs.'' In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 
F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015), cert. granted sub nom., 
Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Also, 
the Office does not agree that using differing standards for claim 
construction in different tribunals presents a scenario where 
inconsistencies are inappropriate. See In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.3d 1422, 
1429 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) (stating inconsistent findings concerning 
validity in different proceedings may be appropriate). Appropriate 
rationales exist to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation claim 
construction standard when there is an ability to clarify claim scope 
and to apply a Phillips construction when no opportunity to amend 
exists and claims should be construed to preserve validity if possible.
    Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in the 
proceedings serves an important patent quality assurance function. 
Therefore, the Office agrees with comments that the application of the 
broadest reasonable interpretation for claims furthers the 
congressional goal of providing ``a meaningful opportunity to improve 
patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity 
that comes with issued patents in court.'' H.R. Rep. No. 112-98(I) at 
48 (2011), reprinted in, 2011 USCCAN 67, 78 (discussing post-grant 
proceedings). Finally, the Office notes that because issued patents can 
return to the Office through a number of different avenues in addition 
to AIA trials, it should follow the same claim construction approach in 
all of its proceedings. Inconsistent results could become an issue if 
the Office adopted a standard of claim construction other than the 
broadest reasonable interpretation for post-grant reviews. 
Specifically, the AIA contemplates that there will be multiple 
proceedings in the Office, and thus requires the Office to establish 
rules concerning the relationships between the various proceedings. For 
example, there may be an inter partes review of a patent that is also 
subject to an ex parte reexamination, where the patent is part of a 
family of co-pending applications all employing the same claim 
terminology. Difficulties could arise where the Office is handling 
multiple proceedings with different claim construction standards 
applicable.
    Comment 2: Several comments offered input on the timing and 
procedure for briefing the issue of the appropriate claim construction 
approach. One commenter offered that the Office should promulgate 
guidelines for when petitioner should offer a Phillips-type 
construction in a petition, but not penalize a petitioner for applying 
an incorrect construction standard, and other commenters asserted that 
petitioners should not be required to submit both a broadest reasonable 
interpretation and a Phillips-type construction in the petition because 
it presents too great a burden for petitioner. Some commenters 
suggested that additional briefing could be provided prior to the 
patent owner response addressing which standard of claim construction 
should apply. Some commenters asked that the Office set forth clear 
rules as to when each standard of claim construction applies so that 
there is no increase of cost or duration of the proceeding due to 
contesting which approach should apply.
    Several commenters offered a bright-line rule of a fixed period of 
time to determine when to apply a Phillips-type construction. Under 
this bright-line rule, if a patent expires during the fixed time 
period, a Phillips-type construction approach will apply, and if the 
patent does not expire during the fixed time period, a broadest 
reasonable interpretation approach will apply. Some commenters 
requested a three or four year fixed period of time for which a 
Phillips-type construction would be applied for patents that expire 
within the time period to account for any appeal to the Federal Circuit 
and possible remand. One commenter pointed to Institute Pasteur v. 
Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015), to support a three-year, 
bright-line rule for applying a Phillips-type construction, arguing 
that such a length of time is necessary because the Federal Circuit 
recognized that no opportunity existed

[[Page 18753]]

to amend claims in a patent that expired two months after issuance of 
the Office decision on appeal. Other commenters suggested a bright line 
rule of applying a Phillips-type construction if a petition is filed 
less than eighteen months before the patent's expiration date because 
it takes into account the potential time to complete both the 
preliminary proceeding and trial phases of an AIA proceeding. Others 
proposed that if a patent expires within two years from the filing of a 
petition, a Phillips-type construction should apply to take into 
account any possible six-month extension of the proceeding due to good 
cause. One commenter suggested a flexible approach where a Phillips-
type construction should be applied if the parties agree to such a 
construction.
    Response: The Office agrees that procedures to determine which 
claim construction standard applies to a patent that may expire before 
the conclusion of a proceeding should minimize the cost and burden to 
the parties, and also offer a full and fair opportunity for each party 
to present its case under the appropriate approach. The Office agrees 
that it is too burdensome to require a petitioner to submit in its 
petition a construction under both a broadest reasonable construction 
and a Phillips-type construction if the petitioner determines that the 
challenged patent may expire before the end of the proceeding. 
Application of a bright-line rule applying a specific time period 
during which, if a patent expires, a Phillips-type construction should 
be applied, is problematic because it does not address the actual 
question of whether a patent has expired before an AIA proceeding is 
completed. There is no disagreement that an expired patent cannot be 
amended; if a patent does not expire during an AIA proceeding, however, 
it is equally true that it is subject to amendment. The Office declines 
to speculate as to what may happen after an AIA proceeding has been 
concluded to determine an appropriate course of action to take during 
the proceeding as the Office cannot presume that all final written 
decisions will be appealed.
    The Office believes that the best approach to determine when a 
particular patent will expire is to allow either party to request by 
motion that a Phillips-type construction be applied in the proceeding 
after certifying that the patent will expire within eighteen months of 
the filing of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded. This procedure 
provides a panel with flexibility to address any factual scenario 
presented by a particular case. The Office agrees with commenters that 
a motions practice in which the petitioner may be able to brief an 
alternative construction before patent owner files its preliminary 
response may be an efficient way to proceed, but such choice is left to 
the discretion of the panel. Ever mindful of the statutory deadlines 
that exist in AIA proceedings, such a procedure provides the panel with 
a way to manage efficiently a proceeding where the claim construction 
may differ from what a petitioner has presented in its petition.
    Comment 3: One commenter suggested that a Markman-type proceeding 
may be held after institution of a trial, but before a patent owner has 
to file its patent owner response.
    Response: Although the timing in some cases may require that the 
applicable claim construction must be briefed or determined after 
institution, the Office prefers to resolve the applicable claim 
construction standard before institution, and ideally, before the 
patent owner preliminary response deadline has passed. The earlier that 
the appropriate standard for claim construction may be determined, the 
more guidance the Office may provide in its institution decision for 
the parties to conduct the trial, including discovery, appropriately 
and efficiently, and in some cases, the Office may decide to deny 
institution when applying the appropriate standard.
    Comment 4: One commenter asserted that where claim terms in dispute 
in an AIA review proceeding have been construed in a final, non-
appealable court decision involving the same parties or their privies, 
the Office should adopt that claim construction as a matter of issue 
preclusion and to avoid inconsistent results.
    Response: Parties can and have asserted in AIA proceedings that a 
previous claim construction issued in a court decision controls. The 
Office has reviewed such assertions in light of the facts of each 
particular case, and has adopted district court constructions when 
appropriate. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Simpleair Inc., CBM2014-00054, 
slip op. at 7 (PTAB May 13, 2014) (Paper 19) (adopting district court's 
constructions, which both parties asserted should be applied in the AIA 
proceeding, as consistent with the broadest reasonable construction); 
Kyocera Corp. v. Softview, LLC, IPR2013-0004, IPR2013-00257, slip op. 
at 5 (PTAB March 21, 2014) (Paper 53) (same). A per se rule applying 
issue preclusion to avoid inconsistencies between two fora's claims 
constructions, however, is not appropriate in light of the fact 
specific nature of the application of issue preclusion, the differing 
construction approaches applied in the district court and the Office, 
and patent owner's opportunity to amend its challenged claims in an AIA 
proceeding to conform to a prior district court construction.
    Comment 5: One commenter sought a rule that claim amendments will 
not be permitted in situations where the patent will expire during the 
statutory time allowed for the completion of the inter partes review 
proceeding. The commenter noted that a patent must have some 
enforceable life after a proceeding for an amendment to be meaningful, 
otherwise, the amendment is tantamount to a cancelation of the original 
claim. The commenter also noted that the Office can ensure that a 
patent will expire during the proceeding by issuing a final written 
decision after expiration of the patent at issue.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comments and recognizes that 
the amendment process may not be effective if the patent is expiring or 
near expiration during the pendency of an AIA proceeding. The Office, 
however, does not believe that a rule change is necessary to address 
such a situation because the current rules offer the panel the ability 
to address such situations when they arise.
    Comment 6: Commenters suggested that allowing a patent owner to 
forgo an opportunity to amend claims in its patent to receive a 
Phillips-type construction is unworkable and unfair to petitioner. 
Also, one commenter noted that to allow a patent owner to forgo 
amendment also raises an issue as to whether other proceedings before 
the Office with the same patent would also be subject to patent owner's 
choice to forgo the opportunity to amend. The commenter opined that a 
patent owner may forgo amendment and ensure a Phillips-type 
construction by terminally disclaiming the term of its patent before an 
AIA proceeding is filed. The commenter noted that generally a patent 
owner has asserted its patent before an AIA proceeding is filed, and 
thus has the opportunity to file a terminal disclaimer before a 
petition is filed.
    Response: The Office agrees that allowing a patent owner to 
disclaim the term of its patent during an AIA proceeding to ensure a 
Phillips-type construction may be unworkable. Providing a petitioner 
with a full and fair opportunity to address claim construction under 
the appropriate approach would be difficult if a patent owner were able 
to disclaim patent term late in a proceeding. Also, whether a patent 
owner chooses to file a terminal disclaimer or simply forgoes the 
opportunity to file a motion to amend, the opportunity to amend was 
available to the patent owner, but the patent

[[Page 18754]]

owner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity. It is this 
opportunity to amend claims to clarify their scope and to notify the 
public of what is encompassed by a claim that forms, at least in part, 
the Office's application of the broadest reasonable interpretation 
standard.
    Comment 7: Commenters suggested that the Office must consider 
prosecution history in claim construction.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comment and agrees that 
relevant prosecution history should be considered when specifically 
cited, explained, and relied upon by the parties. See Microsoft Corp. 
v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Patent Owner's Motions To Amend

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office noted that AIA 
proceedings are neither ex parte patent prosecution of a patent 
application nor patent reexamination or reissue. The Board does not 
conduct a prior art search to evaluate the patentability of the 
proposed substitute claims, and any such requirement would be 
impractical given the statutory structure of AIA proceedings. If a 
motion to amend is granted, the substitute claims become part of an 
issued patent, without any further examination by the Office. Because 
of this constraint, the Office has set forth rules for motions to amend 
that account for the absence of an independent examination by the 
Office where a prior art search is performed as would be done during 
prosecution of a patent application, reexamination, or reissue.
    The Office stated in Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., 
Case IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (informative), that 
in a motion to amend, ``[t]he burden is not on the petitioner to show 
unpatentability, but on the patent owner to show patentable distinction 
over the prior art of record and also prior art known to the patent 
owner.'' Id. at 7 (emphasis added). The Office subsequently clarified 
this statement, and specifically, addressed the meaning of the terms 
``prior art of record'' and ``prior art known to the patent owner,'' 
and how the burden of production shifts to the petitioner once the 
patent owner has made its prima facie case for patentability of the 
amendment. See MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., Case IPR2015-00040, 
slip op. at 1-3 (PTAB July 15, 2015) (Paper 42). This decision 
clarifies that a patent owner must argue for the patentability of the 
proposed substitute claims over the prior art of record, which includes 
the following: (a.) Any material art in the prosecution history of the 
patent; (b.) any material art of record in the current proceeding, 
including art asserted in grounds on which the Board did not institute 
review; and (c.) any material art of record in any other proceeding 
before the Office involving the patent. Id. at 2. The Patent Owner must 
also distinguish over any art provided in light of a patent owner's 
duty of candor, and any other prior art or arguments supplied by the 
petitioner, in conjunction with the requirement that the proposed 
substitute claims be narrower than the claims that are being replaced. 
Id. at 3.
    In addition, the Office stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
that the decision in MasterImage clarified how the burden of production 
shifts between the parties with regard to a motion to amend. ``With 
respect to a motion to amend, once Patent Owner has set forth a prima 
facie case of patentability of narrower substitute claims over the 
prior art of record, the burden of production shifts to Petitioner. In 
its opposition, Petitioner may explain why Patent Owner did not make 
out a prima facie case of patentability, or attempt to rebut that prima 
facie case, by addressing Patent Owner's evidence and arguments and/or 
by identifying and applying additional prior art against proposed 
substitute claims. Patent Owner has an opportunity to respond in its 
reply. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains with Patent Owner, the 
movant, to demonstrate the patentability of the amended claims.'' 
MasterImage, slip op. at 3 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 
789 F.3d 1292, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Office also stated in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that it currently does not contemplate a 
change in rules or practice to shift the ultimate burden of persuasion 
on patentability of proposed substitute claims from the patent owner to 
the petitioner. Depending on the amendment, a petitioner may not have 
an interest in challenging patentability of any substitute claims. 
Therefore, to ensure patent quality and to protect the public interest, 
the ultimate burden of persuasion on patent owner's motion to amend 
remains best situated with the patent owner, to ensure that there is a 
clear demonstration on the record that the proposed substitute claims 
are patentable, given that there is no opportunity for separate 
examination of these newly proposed substitute claims in these 
adjudicatory-style AIA proceedings. See Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1307 
(stating ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the patent owner, 
the movant, to demonstrate the patentability of the substitute claims).
    The Office received a spectrum of comments that ranged from 
approval of the Office's current motion to amend practice to those 
seeking significant changes to that practice. The Office addresses 
these additional comments below.
    Comment 1: Commenters stated that patent owners should have the 
burden to establish a prima facie case of patentability of narrower 
substitute claims only over the prior art involved in grounds upon 
which the trial was instituted or at least the prior art of record in 
the AIA proceeding. Such a proposal, one commenter asserted, promotes 
efficiency by not requiring consideration of prior art that a 
petitioner has not asserted establishes unpatentability, and does not 
change the ultimate burden of persuasion from the patent owner. Another 
commenter stated that placing a burden on the patent owner to establish 
patentability over prior art not of record in the AIA proceeding 
inappropriately extends the burden imposed by 37 CFR 42.20(c), contrary 
to statements made in Microsoft v. Proxyconn. Another commenter 
suggested that the Office cannot require by decision any showing beyond 
what is required by 37 CFR 42.121.
    Response: Although the Office appreciates that other procedures 
would streamline presenting a motion to amend, the Office remains 
concerned that if such a motion to amend were granted, the substitute 
claims become part of an issued patent without any further examination 
by the Office. To account appropriately for this lack of independent 
examination of substitute claims, the Office has required the patent 
owner to show in its motion to amend patentability over: (a.) Any 
material art in the prosecution history of the patent; (b.) any 
material art of record in the current proceeding, including art 
asserted in grounds on which the Board did not institute review; and 
(c.) any material art of record in any other proceeding before the 
Office involving the patent, in addition to showing patentability over 
prior art of record in the proceeding. The Office agrees with one 
commenter that such a requirement does not place an onerous or undue 
burden on patent owner. Also, such a requirement is not inconsistent 
with 37 CFR 42.20(c) or Microsoft v. Proxyconn. In a motion to amend, 
the patent owner is asking the Office to enter new claims in an issued 
patent that were not examined. The patent owner as the movant has the 
burden to show

[[Page 18755]]

patentability. See Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1307 (``The Board has 
reasonably interpreted these provisions [35 U.S.C. 318(b) and 37 CFR 
42.20(c)] as requiring the patentee to show that its substitute claims 
are patentable over the prior art of record, at least in circumstances 
in this case.''). The Federal Circuit also confirmed in Microsoft that 
the Office appropriately relies on prior art to determine patentability 
of substitute claims when the patent owner is given adequate notice and 
opportunity to present arguments distinguishing that reference. 
Microsoft, 789 F.2d at 1307-08; see Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 2014-
1719, 2016 WL 537609, at *3-5 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Prolitec, Inc. v. 
Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The 
Federal Circuit also confirmed that 37 CFR 42.121 does not provide an 
exhaustive list of grounds upon which the Office can deny a motion to 
amend, id. at 1306, and choosing adjudication over rulemaking for 
motions to amend is not abusing the PTO's discretion. Id. at 1307.
    Comment 2: Several commenters expressed concern about the 
consistency in application of decisions that are not deemed 
precedential, suggesting a standing order specifying which informative 
decisions govern a motion to amend may ensure such consistency.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comments and will consider 
further how best to ensure uniformity in the application of 
requirements for motions to amend. Currently, the rules require that a 
party must confer with the panel before filing a motion to amend, 
during which the panel provides guidance for such a motion. 37 CFR 
42.121(a) and 42.221(a). The Office will further consider ways to 
promote uniformity in the requirements for a motion to amend, such as 
by designating opinions precedential, issuing a standing order setting 
forth what requirements govern a proceeding for motions to amend, or 
other means.
    Comment 3: Commenters suggested that the Office provide more 
guidance on the requirements that a patent owner must meet to establish 
patentability of substitute claims in a motion to amend such as the 
method and scope of a prior art search, whether a patent owner should 
specify the most relevant prior art in an affidavit, or what 
constitutes an acceptable definition of a key term in a motion to 
amend.
    Response: The Office will endeavor to provide guidance through its 
adjudicatory process including evaluating whether decisions providing 
guidance should be made precedential.
    Comment 4: A few commenters suggested using examiners to ensure 
patentability of proposed substitute claims in a motion to amend.
    Response: As the Office stated in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, it does not contemplate seeking assistance from the 
Examining Corps for review of motions to amend, but will continue to 
evaluate the best way to improve the practice.

Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office proposed amending 
the rules to allow the patent owner to file new testimonial evidence 
without any limit on scope with its preliminary response. Because the 
time frame for the preliminary phase of an AIA proceeding does not 
allow generally for cross-examination of a declarant before institution 
as of right, nor for the petitioner to file a reply brief as of right, 
the Office is amending the rules to provide that any factual dispute 
created by testimonial evidence that is material to the institution 
decision will be resolved in favor of the petitioner solely for 
purposes of determining whether to institute a trial. This presumption 
was proposed, among other reasons, to preserve petitioner's right to 
challenge statements made by the patent owner's declarant, which may be 
done as of right during a trial.
    Commenters who favored allowing patent owner to present new 
testimonial evidence at the pre-institution stage expressed two areas 
of concern with the proposed changes to allow new testimonial evidence 
to be submitted with patent owner's preliminary response: (1) The 
presumption in favor of petitioner for resolving factual disputes; and 
(2) the availability of a reply. The Office addresses these comments 
below in the responses to Comment 4 and Comment 5.
    Comment 1: Many commenters support allowing patent owner to submit 
new testimonial evidence at the pre-institution stage, asserting that 
it presents a better balance of the opportunity to present evidence for 
both sides, thus leveling the playing field and encouraging full 
disclosure of rebuttal evidence by patent owner, and provides the 
Office with the best available information to decide whether to 
institute a trial. Others posited that allowing patent owner to submit 
new testimonial evidence in the patent owner preliminary response may 
also lead to settlement or other early disposition of the proceeding 
resulting in reduced expense and judicial economy. One commenter noted 
that capping the number of declarations that a patent owner may submit 
with its preliminary response may prevent presentation of too many 
factual disputes that cannot be resolved prior to institution. Another 
commenter sought assurance that the Office will not draw a negative 
inference from a decision to forgo submitting new testimonial evidence.
    Response: The Office appreciates these comments and amends the rule 
to allow a patent owner to submit new testimonial evidence with its 
preliminary response, with the caveat that, if a genuine issue of 
material fact is created by testimonial evidence, the issue will be 
resolved in favor of petitioner solely for institution purposes so that 
petitioner will have an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant 
during the trial. The Office does not believe that any express 
restriction on the number of declarations that a patent owner may 
submit with its preliminary response is necessary at this time. Also, 
just as the Office places no negative inference on patent owner's 
choice to forgo an opportunity to file a preliminary response, no 
negative inference will be drawn if a patent owner decides not to 
present new testimonial evidence with a preliminary response.
    Comment 2: Some commenters disagreed with the proposal to allow 
patent owners to submit new testimonial evidence with a preliminary 
response because such a rule may cause petitions to be denied without 
petitioner having the opportunity to cross examine a declarant or to 
reply to the new evidence. These commenters asserted that because a 
decision on institution is not appealable, a denial based on new 
testimonial evidence, without the safeguards of the procedures at trial 
that provide an opportunity for cross-examination of declarants and for 
a petitioner reply, is problematic. Also, these commenters noted that 
to apply such procedures prior to institution to alleviate these 
concerns also is problematic because it creates a trial-before-a-trial 
scenario when the institution decision should remain focused on the 
sufficiency of the petition. These commenters suggest that patent 
owner, on the other hand, would not be prejudiced by having to wait 
until filing its response to submit new testimonial evidence because 
there is an opportunity to fully develop the record post-institution, 
making the current rules fair to all parties. Several commenters 
expressed concern that allowing patent owner to present new testimonial 
evidence prior to institution of a trial will increase its costs with 
no substantive gain. Patent owners now

[[Page 18756]]

may point out deficiencies in the petition, but permitting new 
testimonial evidence will only create factual disputes for which the 
Office would apply the presumption in favor of petitioner and 
institute.
    Response: The Office understands the concern that a petition should 
not be denied based on testimony that supports a finding of fact in 
favor of the patent owner when the petitioner has not had an 
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. For that reason, the Office 
will resolve a genuine issue of fact created by patent owner's 
testimonial evidence in favor of the petitioner solely for purposes of 
institution. In appropriate circumstances, a panel, in its discretion, 
may order some limited discovery, including cross-examination of 
witnesses, before institution. It is premature to assess the effect of 
allowing patent owner to present new testimonial evidence at the 
preliminary stage, but as it is not mandatory to submit such evidence, 
the patent owner will have to assess the value of submitting such 
evidence based on the particular case. The Office does not agree that 
patent owner's submission of new testimonial evidence necessarily 
creates a factual dispute that may not be resolved pre-institution. As 
the Federal Circuit has recognized, ``[t]he mere existence in the 
record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine 
issue of material fact.'' Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan 
Servs., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at * 8 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) 
(citing KTEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1374-76 (Fed. Cir. 
2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment that design patent was not 
analogous art, despite contrary opinion in expert report); Minkin v. 
Gibbons, P.C., 680 F.3d 1341, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (indicating that 
summary judgment of invalidity may be available notwithstanding expert 
report supporting validity)).
    Comment 3: One commenter questioned the weight to be given to new 
testimonial evidence presented with the preliminary response when 
reaching the final written decision. The commenter also asked how the 
scope of discovery post-institution would be modified where testimonial 
evidence was presented pre-institution.
    Response: The Office will resolve these issues on a case-by-case 
basis. In general, a party has the opportunity to cross-examine 
affidavit testimony submitted by another party unless the Board orders 
otherwise. 37 CFR 42.51(b)(1)(ii). If expert testimony presented by the 
patent owner at the preliminary stage is relied on at the trial stage, 
the rule would apply unless the panel decides otherwise. For example, 
if the testimony is withdrawn at the trial stage, the Board would have 
to consider whether cross-examination falls within the scope of 
additional discovery. See 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5), 326(a)(5); 37 CFR 
42.51(b)(2).
    Comment 4: Commenters favor the presumption for petitioner for 
factual disputes created by new testimonial evidence submitted by 
patent owner with its preliminary response as a mere factual 
contradiction from the patent owner should not prevent institution 
without cross-examination. One commenter wanted immediate cross-
examination of patent owner's new testimonial evidence to test its 
veracity. Other commenters suggested that a presumption in favor of 
petitioner for any factual issue is counter to the statute and unfair 
to patent owners, and may discourage presentation of new testimonial 
evidence, because petitioner bears the burden at all stages of an AIA 
proceeding and the presumption is contrary to the presumption of 
validity. One commenter suggested that the presumption should weigh in 
favor of patent owner. Weighing evidence in favor of petitioner is 
inconsistent with petitioner's burden, these commenters asserted, and 
the inability to cross-examine witnesses is the same for all parties at 
the pre-institution stage, negating a need for this presumption because 
the parties are on equal footing. One commenter suggested that the 
availability of a pre-institution reply by petitioner negates any need 
for this presumption. Another commenter, however, stated that the 
presumption is appropriate in view of the statutory scheme where a 
preliminary response exists to point out the failure of a petition to 
meet any requirement for institution. Also, commenters asserted that 
the presumption as drafted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
overly broad and 37 CFR 42.108(c) and 42.208(c) should be amended to 
limit expressly the application of any presumptions in favor of the 
petitioner to only disputed issues of material fact where the dispute 
is created by the introduction of the patent owner's unchallenged 
testimonial evidence.
    Response: In light of the comments, the Office clarifies in this 
final rule that the presumption applies only when a genuine issue of 
material fact is created by patent owner's testimonial evidence. As 
previously stated, the Office also agrees that not every factual 
contradiction rises to the level of a genuine issue of material fact 
that would preclude a decision on the factual issue at the preliminary 
stage of a proceeding to assess whether petitioner has met the 
threshold burden for institution of a trial. The Office declines to 
adopt a presumption in favor of the patent owner for disputed facts at 
the institution stage, as the patent owner will have another 
opportunity to submit evidence during the trial. Additionally, because 
a denial of institution is a final, non-appealable decision, deciding 
disputed factual issues in favor of the patent owner when a petitioner 
has not had the opportunity to cross-examine patent owner's declarant 
is inappropriate and contrary to the statutory framework for AIA 
review. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5), 326(a)(5). That both parties 
are in the same position at the preliminary stage, where generally 
there is no time for cross-examination of witnesses, does not support 
the view that no presumption should exist for either party because it 
is only through the trial process that each party is afforded a full 
and fair opportunity to cross-examine declarants. A presumption in 
favor of petitioner for disputed facts, which may be fully vetted 
during a trial when cross-examination of declarants is available, is 
appropriate given the effect of denial of a petition.
    Comment 5: Several commenters asserted that petitioner should have 
a reply as of right when patent owner submits new testimonial evidence 
with its preliminary response, and one commenter advocated a reply of 
right for petitioner at the pre-institution stage regardless of whether 
patent owner submits new testimonial evidence and asserted such a reply 
is critical to ensure that the Office decides institution based on 
consideration of the full merits of each party's arguments. These 
commenters suggested that the lack of a reply as of right may be 
appropriate if the Office is prepared to liberally grant petitioners a 
reply to address patent owner arguments that petitioner could not have 
anticipated. These commenters requested that the Office clarify under 
what circumstances a reply would be warranted. For instance, in 
addition to allowing petitioner to respond to arguments that it could 
not have anticipated, several commenters asserted that a right to reply 
should be granted when any threshold issues are addressed by the new 
testimonial evidence such as CBM-eligibility, proper identification of 
real parties-in-interest, and statutory bar issues under 35 U.S.C. 
315(b). Another commenter sought clarification as to the standard to be 
applied for granting a reply, such as interest of justice or good 
cause. One commenter asserted that a petitioner's

[[Page 18757]]

reply is unnecessary at the preliminary stage because it can anticipate 
the patent owner's response to arguments from patent owner's positions 
taken in parallel litigation. One commenter wanted more guidance on the 
timing and content of a reply, such as limiting it to a response to the 
new testimonial evidence, and whether allowing a reply would affect the 
timing of institution or the final decision.
    Response: The Office believes that although submission of patent 
owner testimonial evidence at the preliminary stage may warrant 
granting petitioner a reply to such evidence, the decision concerning 
whether petitioner will be afforded a reply and the appropriate scope 
of such a reply rests best with the panel deciding the proceeding to 
take into account the specific facts of the particular case.

Additional Discovery

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office stated that it 
will continue to apply several factors on a case-by-case basis when 
considering whether additional discovery in an inter partes review is 
necessary in the interest of justice, as follows:
    1. More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation. The mere 
possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that 
something useful will be found, are insufficient. Thus, the party 
requesting discovery already should be in possession of a threshold 
amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that 
something useful will be uncovered. ``Useful'' does not mean merely 
``relevant'' or ``admissible,'' but rather means favorable in 
substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery.
    2. Litigation Positions And Underlying Basis. Asking for the other 
party's litigation positions and the underlying basis for those 
positions is not necessarily in the interest of justice.
    3. Ability To Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means. 
Discovery of information a party reasonably can figure out, generate, 
obtain, or assemble without a discovery request would not be in the 
interest of justice.
    4. Easily Understandable Instructions. The requests themselves 
should be easily understandable. For example, ten pages of complex 
instructions are prima facie unclear.
    5. Requests Not Overly Burdensome To Answer. The Board considers 
financial burden, burden on human resources, and burden on meeting the 
time schedule of the review. Requests should be sensible and 
responsibly tailored according to a genuine need.
    Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, 
slip op. at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26) (informative). The 
Office also applies similar factors in post-grant reviews and covered 
business method patent reviews when deciding whether the requested 
additional discovery is supported by a good cause showing and ``limited 
to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced'' by a 
party. See 37 CFR 42.224; Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd, Case 
CBM2013-00005, slip op. at 3-5 (PTAB May 29, 2013) (Paper 32). The 
Office also noted that as discovery disputes are highly fact dependent, 
the Office decides each issue on a case-by-case basis, taking account 
of the specific facts of the proceeding. See, e.g., Bloomberg, Case 
CBM2013-00005, slip op. at 6-7 (granting a specific and narrowly 
tailored request seeking information considered by an expert witness in 
connection with the preparation of his declaration filed in the 
proceeding). Also, parties are encouraged to raise discovery issues, 
and confer with each other regarding such issues, as soon as they arise 
in a proceeding.
    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office also noted that it 
has provided guidance on its Web site, see, e.g., http://www.uspto.gov/blog/aia/entry/message_from_administrative_patent_judges, in response 
to comments generated from these questions, and will revise the Office 
Patent Trial Practice Guide to reflect this guidance.
    Comment 1: Several commenters expressed agreement with the 
application of the Garmin factors on a case-by-case basis. Commenters 
noted that application of the Garmin factors in deciding whether to 
grant additional discovery helps control costs, allows completion of a 
trial within the one-year time period avoiding a trial within a trial, 
and avoids discovery pitfalls found in district court litigation. Other 
commenters applauded the requirement of highly targeted and limited 
discovery requests to ensure that discovery is not overly burdensome. 
For instance, requiring a showing of nexus between the alleged 
objective indicia of non-obviousness and the claimed invention is 
appropriate before granting additional discovery of a party's products.
    Response: The Office agrees with these comments. Application of the 
Garmin factors provides a flexible approach to address each motion's 
unique set of facts, which necessitates a case-by-case approach.
    Comment 2: One commenter requested that the Office relax the 
application of the first Garmin factor to require only ``a reasonable 
basis that the non-moving party has evidence relevant to an issue'' 
when juxtaposed with the fifth factor considering the burdensome nature 
of the requests.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comment, but does not believe 
that it is necessary to relax the application of the first Garmin 
factor as the Office resolves the factors on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment 3: One commenter urged consistency in the application of 
the Garmin factors in determining whether to grant additional discovery 
and asks for precedential decisions for guidance.
    Response: The Office agrees that panels should strive for 
consistency when addressing motions for additional discovery that 
present similar facts. The Office also does review opinions in an 
effort to identify ones that should be designated as precedential, and 
notes that the public may also ask the Office to consider designating a 
particular opinion as precedential. Resolving discovery issues, 
however, is so highly dependent on the facts of the particular case 
that precedents often are not helpful.
    Comment 4: One commenter asked that if a discovery request 
addresses a standing issue, it should be liberally granted.
    Response: The nature of the issue to be resolved in discovery 
disputes is taken into account when assessing the Garmin factors. The 
Garmin factors are appropriate and adequate to resolve whether 
discovery should be granted for information relating to standing issues 
in addition to any other issue for which a party seeks discovery.
    Comment 5: A commenter urged the Office to add the following 
additional factors to the Garmin factors for consideration by a panel: 
(1) Whether the information is solely within the possession of the 
other party; (2) whether the information already has been produced in a 
related matter; and (3) whether the discovery sought relates to 
jurisdictional issues under 35 U.S.C. 315 and 325.
    Response: Garmin sets forth a flexible and representative framework 
for providing helpful guidance to the parties, and assisting the Office 
to decide whether additional discovery requested in an inter partes 
review is necessary in the interest of justice, consistent with 35 
U.S.C. 316(a)(5), or whether additional discovery in a post-grant 
review is supported by a good cause showing, consistent with 35 U.S.C. 
326(a)(5). The list of factors set forth in Garmin is not exhaustive. 
The Office applies the factors on a case-by-case basis, considering the 
particular facts of each discovery request,

[[Page 18758]]

including the particular arguments raised by a party seeking additional 
discovery. Under this flexible approach, parties are permitted to 
present their arguments using different factors including those 
suggested in the comments. In fact, the suggested additional factors 
are subsumed effectively already under the Garmin factors, and have 
been considered by the Office in deciding whether to grant additional 
discovery requests. See, e.g., Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC v. Chi. Bd. 
Options Exch., Inc., Case IPR2014-00097 (PTAB July 14, 2014) (Paper 20) 
(granting a specific, narrowly tailored, and reasonable request for 
additional discovery of information that Patent Owner could not have 
obtained reasonably without a discovery request).
    Comment 6: Several comments indicated that, although the Garmin 
factors are appropriate, they sometimes are being applied incorrectly 
to require the moving party to have the actual evidence being sought.
    Response: As explained in Garmin, the moving party, who is seeking 
additional discovery, should present a threshold amount of evidence or 
reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will 
be uncovered. Garmin, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 7-8. This factor 
ensures that the opposing party is not overly burdened, and the 
proceeding not unnecessarily delayed, by speculative requests where 
discovery is not warranted. The Office, however, does not require the 
moving party to have any actual evidence of the type being sought.

Additional Discovery on Evidence Relating to Obviousness

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office stated that the 
Garmin factors currently provide appropriate and sufficient guidance 
for how to handle requests for additional discovery, such as for 
evidence of commercial success for a product of the petitioner, which 
the Office will continue to decide on a case-by-case basis. In the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office also encouraged parties to 
confer and reach an agreement on the information to exchange early in 
the proceeding, resolving discovery issues promptly and efficiently. 
See 37 CFR 42.51(a). The Office, however, will continue to seek 
feedback as the case law develops as to whether a more specific rule 
for this type of discovery is warranted or needed. In the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, the Office also stated that the Garmin factors 
provide helpful guidance to the parties and assist the Office to 
achieve the appropriate balance, permitting meaningful discovery, while 
securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every 
proceeding. The Office also plans to add further discussion as to how 
the Garmin factors have been applied in the Office Patent Trial 
Practice Guide.
    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office recognized that it 
is important to provide a patent owner a full and fair opportunity to 
develop arguments regarding secondary considerations. Evidence of many 
secondary considerations (e.g., long-felt need, industry praise, 
commercial success of patent owner's patented product, widespread 
licensing) is available to patent owners without discovery. When patent 
owners seek additional discovery on such issues, however, the Office 
agreed that a conclusive showing of nexus between the claimed invention 
and the information being sought through discovery is not required at 
the time the patent owner requests the additional discovery. 
Nonetheless, some showing of nexus is required to ensure that 
additional discovery is necessary in the interest of justice, in an 
inter partes review, or is supported by a good cause showing, in a 
post-grant review. See 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5) and 326(a)(5); 37 CFR 
42.51(b)(2) and 42.224. Notably, as explained in Garmin concerning 
Factor 1, the mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere 
allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient to 
demonstrate that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest 
of justice. Garmin, slip op. at 6. A patent owner seeking secondary 
consideration evidence from a petitioner should present a threshold 
amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that 
something useful will be uncovered. A mere infringement contention or 
allegation that the claims reasonably could be read to cover the 
petitioner's product is generally insufficient, because such a 
contention or allegation, for example, does not show necessarily that 
the alleged commercial success derives from the claimed feature. Nor 
does it account for other desirable features of the petitioner's 
product or market position that could have contributed to the alleged 
commercial success. See e.g., In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 
2008) (finding no nexus absent evidence that ``the driving force behind 
[the allegedly successful product's sales] was the claimed 
combination''); John's Lone Star Distrib., Inc. v. Thermolife Int'l, 
LLC, IPR2014-01201 (PTAB May 13, 2015) (Paper 30). The Office plans to 
add further discussion on this issue to the Office Patent Trial 
Practice Guide.
    Comment 1: Although commenters agreed with the use of the Garmin 
factors as providing appropriate and sufficient guidance for deciding 
motions for additional discovery, and agreed with a case-by-case 
approach, one commenter questioned the case-by-case approach and stated 
that proof of a nexus between secondary consideration evidence and the 
claimed invention before authorizing discovery places too high a burden 
on the patent owner. Another commenter stated that a strong nexus 
showing should be required and infringement contentions do not by 
themselves show such nexus.
    Response: The scope of discovery in AIA proceedings differs 
significantly from the scope of discovery available under the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure in district court proceedings. Because 
Congress intended AIA proceedings to be a quick and cost-effective 
alternative to litigation, the statute provides only limited discovery 
in trial proceedings before the Office. See 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5) and 
326(a)(5); 37 CFR 42.51(b)(2) and 42.224. Some showing of nexus is 
required to ensure that the additional discovery is necessary in the 
interest of justice, in an inter partes review, or is supported by a 
good cause showing, in a post-grant review

Real Party-in-Interest

    The Office noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that it is 
important to resolve real party-in-interest and privity issues as early 
as possible, preferably in the preliminary stage of the proceeding 
prior to institution, to avoid unnecessary delays and to minimize cost 
and burden on the parties and the resources of the Office. In most 
cases, the patent owner also recognizes the benefit of raising a real 
party-in-interest or privity challenge early in the proceeding, before 
or with the filing of its preliminary response, to avoid the cost and 
burden of a trial if the challenge is successful.
    The Office also noted that to balance efficiency with fairness, the 
Office, in general, will permit a patent owner to raise a challenge 
regarding a real party-in-interest or privity at any time during a 
trial proceeding. Such a position is consistent with the final rule 
notice. See Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-
Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business 
Method Patents; Final Rule, 77 FR 48680, 48695 (Aug. 14, 2012) (``After 
institution, standing issues may still be raised during trial. A patent 
owner may seek authority from

[[Page 18759]]

the Board to take pertinent discovery or to file a motion to challenge 
the petitioner's standing.''). With respect to a late challenge that 
reasonably could have been raised earlier in the proceeding, the Office 
will consider the impact of such a delay on a case-by-case basis, 
including whether the delay is unwarranted or prejudicial. The Office 
also will consider that impact when deciding whether to grant a motion 
for additional discovery based on a real party-in-interest or privity 
issue. The Office plans to add further discussion on this issue to the 
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
    Comment 1: Most commenters agreed that a real party-in-interest 
issue can be raised at any time in the proceeding provided that it is 
raised as soon as possible, preferably by the time that the preliminary 
response is filed, so that it may be decided at the institution stage, 
and patent owner has not delayed in raising the issue. Commenters also 
encouraged the Office to grant liberally requests for additional 
discovery to resolve real party-in-interest disputes early in a 
proceeding. Other commenters sought more clarity and certainty when a 
late challenge to a real party-in-interest designation would be 
permitted, such as whether patent owner should show that the issue 
could not have been raised earlier, whether patent owner has good cause 
to raise it late, or whether addressing a real party-in-interest 
challenge is in the interests of justice.
    Response: The Office agrees that resolving any real party-in-
interest issues early in the case is preferred to provide finality on 
the issue and settled expectations to the parties. The Office believes, 
however, that especially when a challenge to a real party-in-interest 
designation is made later in the case, the panel is in the best 
position to review all the circumstances surrounding any failure to 
name appropriately all real parties-in-interest and to resolve this 
issue. Certainly, the factors mentioned by the commenter, such as 
whether patent owner can show that the issue could not have been raised 
earlier, whether patent owner has good cause to raise it later in the 
proceeding, or whether addressing a real party-in-interest challenge is 
in the interests of justice, are considerations for the panel in making 
a determination as to whether patent owner should be allowed additional 
discovery on the issue. The Office does not believe that special 
discovery rules or procedures are necessitated by challenges to real 
party-in-interest.
    Comment 2: Commenters assert that a petitioner should be allowed to 
amend its real party-in-interest designation without losing the filing 
date of the petition when in the interests of justice and in the 
absence of fraud.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comment and is evaluating 
alternative approaches to permit parties to amend their real party-in-
interest designations.

Multiple Proceedings

    The Office asked a series of questions relating to how multiple 
proceedings, such as an AIA trial, reexamination, or reissue 
proceeding, before the Office involving the same patent should be 
coordinated, including whether one proceeding should be stayed, 
transferred, consolidated, or terminated in favor of another. In 
response to comments answering these questions, the Office noted in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the current rules provide sufficient 
flexibility to address the unique factual scenarios presented to handle 
efficiently and fairly related proceedings before the Office on a case-
by-case basis, and that the Office will continue to take into account 
the interests of justice and fairness to both petitioners and patent 
owners where multiple proceedings involving the same patent claims are 
before the Office. Although the Office proposed no new rule involving 
multiple proceedings, it indicated plans to add further discussion on 
what factors the Office considers when determining whether to stay, 
transfer, consolidate, or terminate a proceeding in the Office Patent 
Trial Practice Guide.
    Comment 1: Commenters agreed that AIA trials on the same patent 
should be consolidated before the same panel, but asserted that the 
current rules insufficiently protect patent owners from potential 
harassment through the filing of multiple AIA proceedings. One 
commenter suggested that sanctions should be imposed against 
petitioners who file serial petitions to harass patent owners. Other 
commenters, however, offered that there are many appropriate reasons 
for a petitioner to file more than one petition, such as a material 
change in the law, to address additional claims, or to address 
information raised by a patent owner that could not have been 
reasonably anticipated. Another commenter suggested that multiple AIA 
proceedings should be instituted against the same patent if brought by 
different petitioners that are not real parties-in-interest or in 
privity with each other.
    Response: The Office disagrees that insufficient protection exists 
for patent owners to guard against potential harassment through the 
filing of multiple petitions. The AIA statutory scheme itself provides 
such protection. See 35 U.S.C. 325(d). Office decisions offering 
guidance on the application of section 325(d) include the following: 
SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, IPR2013-00581 (PTAB Dec. 
30, 2013) (Paper No. 15) (denying a petition as to grounds based upon 
substantially the same prior art and arguments as set forth in a prior 
IPR petition); Oracle Corporation v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00100 
(PTAB May 16, 2013) (Paper No. 8) (granting a petition where new 
arguments and supporting evidence were presented that shed a different 
light on references previously considered during prosecution); 
Medtronic, Inc v. Nuvasive, Inc., Case IPR2014-00487 (PTAB Sept. 11, 
2014) (Paper 8); Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, Case 
IPR2014-00702 (PTAB July 24, 2014) (Paper 13); Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. 
v. Choongwae Pharma Corp., Case IPR2014-00315 (PTAB July 8, 2014) 
(Paper 14); Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00506 
(PTAB July 7, 2014) (Paper 17); Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch 
Healthcare Systems, Inc., Case IPR2014-00436 (PTAB May 19, 2014) (Paper 
17); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Limited, Case 
IPR2013-00324 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) (Paper 19); ZTE Corp. v. 
ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case IPR2013-00454 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013) 
(Paper 12).
    Comment 2: A commenter asserted that different proceedings 
involving the same patent have had inconsistent outcomes and suggested 
that the Office adopt a practice or rule to ensure consistency such as 
requiring a second panel to address an earlier panel's position to 
explain why it is adopting an inconsistent opinion or seeking review of 
a second, inconsistent opinion by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge 
or other Office official.
    Response: The Office agrees that consistency among opinions 
involving the same patent and/or claims is important and strives for 
such consistency. The Office has procedures for assigning generally the 
same panel to cases involving the same patent, or to at least have one 
panel member in common for cases involving the same patent, to ensure 
consistency. The Office also currently has procedures involving 
administrative patent judges that are not assigned to a panel to review 
decisions before they are issued to provide another avenue to ensure 
consistency by flagging inconsistencies with other opinions for the 
panel. A party has the opportunity to point out other decisions 
concerning the same patent and/or claims to a panel and has the 
opportunity to ask for rehearing if

[[Page 18760]]

the party believes that a decision is inconsistent with a previous 
decision. The Office does not believe that additional procedures or 
rules need to be promulgated at this time.
    Comment 3: One commenter asserted that prejudice to the parties and 
the ability to complete proceedings within the one-year statutory 
period should be overriding considerations in how to handle multiple 
proceedings. Other commenters asserted that the interest of a second 
petitioner in being adequately represented and heard and the efficiency 
of resolving a dispute and improving patent quality should be 
considered when deciding whether joinder is appropriate for two AIA 
proceedings.
    Response: The Office strives to ensure fairness to all parties in 
handling multiple proceedings, in addition to considering the 
efficiencies for the Office in how to handle multiple proceedings.
    Comment 4: One commenter requested more guidance on the proper 
timing and procedures for joinder of proceedings when the second 
petitioner files a substantially-identical petition to an earlier-filed 
petition. One commenter suggested that the rules be changed to require 
a default shorter period for a patent owner to file a preliminary 
response to a ``me too'' petition.
    Response: The Office appreciates these comments, but believes that 
the decision concerning whether to shorten the response time for patent 
owner to submit a preliminary response is best left to the discretion 
of the panel handling the case. The Office does attempt to consolidate 
or join proceedings involving the same patent, especially petitions 
that raise virtually identical issues, to efficiently resolve AIA 
proceedings involving the same patent. The trial timeline does at times 
prevent such consolidation or joinder; the closer in time petitions on 
the same patent are filed, the more likely the Office can consolidate 
or join the proceedings.
    Comment 5: One commenter suggests that the Office should consider 
the evidence submitted during prior prosecution, such as secondary 
considerations for non-obviousness, and to deny institution where the 
record was substantially developed.
    Response: The Office does consider the record evidence from the 
prosecution history of the patent when presented and relied upon by the 
parties.

Extension of One Year Period To Issue a Final Determination

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office stated that it 
will continue to strive to meet the one-year statutory time period for 
trial, and that it does not propose to change the rules pertaining to 
the one-year pendency from institution-to-decision to provide for 
specific circumstances under which ``good cause'' may be shown. The 
Office proposed, however, to revise the Office Patent Trial Practice 
Guide to provide an exemplary list of instances in which an extension 
of the one-year statutory period may be warranted. Generally, 
commenters agree with the Office's approach to handling of the one-year 
period to issue a final determination. One commenter offered proposed 
examples of good cause for an extension, such as when one of the 
parties is prejudiced by circumstances that are unforeseeable and 
outside of its control or when the case is complex involving multiple 
proceedings. The Office will consider these suggestions in revising the 
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to provide examples where good cause 
may be shown for extension of the one-year period to issue a final 
determination in an AIA proceeding.

Live Testimony in an Oral Hearing

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office noted that it will 
continue its present practice of considering requests for presentative 
of live testimony in an oral hearing on a case-by-case basis, but the 
Office does not expect that such live testimony will be required in 
every case where there is conflicting testimony. When requested by the 
parties, however, and where the panel believes live testimony will be 
helpful in making a determination, the Office will permit live 
testimony. The format for presenting live testimony is left to the 
discretion of the panel, but panels will make clear at the hearing that 
live testimony is evidence that becomes part of the record. The Office 
also noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that it will provide 
guidance on limiting parties to issues specified in the oral argument 
request in the FAQs on the PTAB Trials Web site and in the Office 
Patent Trial Practice Guide. The Office also proposed amending the 
rules to provide additional days for the parties to exchange and 
conference on demonstrative exhibits to resolve any disputes among 
themselves. Generally, commenters agree with the Office's approach to 
handling live testimony in oral hearings and also agree with the 
proposed change to the rules to allow more time for parties to resolve 
objections to demonstratives.

Rule 11-Type Certification

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office proposed to amend 
section 42.11, which prescribes the duty of candor owed to the Office, 
to include a Rule 11-type certification for papers filed with the Board 
with a provision for sanctions for noncompliance. The Office received 
several comments on the proposal and has responded to those comments 
below. The Office will implement a Rule-11 type certification in the 
final rule.
    Comment 1: There were numerous comments on the proposed changes to 
Rule 42.11 (37 CFR 42.11). Although a number of comments supported 
adoption of the proposed rule, several comments stated that the 
proposed rule was unnecessary or redundant of existing rules and should 
not be adopted.
    Response: The Office sees the proposed rule as preventative in 
nature. Although the Office does not expect, based on past experience, 
that the procedures in the proposed rule will be used often, the 
deterrent effect of having such a rule has been recognized. See Raylon, 
LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 
2012). The final rule, by specifically incorporating the requirements 
of 37 CFR 11.18, provides greater detail on the Office's expectations 
for counsel and parties participating in post grant proceedings and 
also provides a procedure for sanctions motions that does not appear in 
the current rule.
    Comment 2: Several comments expressed concern that the proposed 
rule will lead to an increase in investigations by the Office of 
Enrollment and Discipline (OED). One comment suggested that OED 
investigations could become ``a matter of course'' in AIA trial 
proceedings.
    Response: The Office appreciates the concern raised by the comment. 
Based on experience, however, the Office does not expect this situation 
to occur. Requests for sanctions have so far been infrequent in AIA 
trial proceedings. Moreover, as specifically provided in the final 
rule, a sanctions motion cannot be filed without Board authorization. 
Also, the final rule provides a procedure that allows a party to cure 
an alleged violation before authorization to file a sanctions motion 
can be requested.
    Comment 3: Several commenters observed that the proposed rule omits 
a provision that would allow the ability to plead or aver based on 
contentions or

[[Page 18761]]

denials being likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 
opportunity for further investigation or discovery. A similar comment 
was directed to denials of factual contentions. These comments noted 
that such provisions are present in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure.
    Response: These comments are adopted. The suggested provisions have 
been added to the final rule by incorporating the provisions of 37 CFR 
11.18(b)(2). This change, however, should not be construed as an 
exception to the requirement that the petition include a full statement 
of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed 
explanation of the significance of the evidence including material 
facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent. 37 CFR 42.22.
    Comment 4: Several comments suggested that requiring a party to 
serve written notice to the other party before moving for sanctions may 
not provide sufficient information to correct the allegedly 
sanctionable conduct.
    Response: The comments are adopted. The final rule requires service 
of a proposed motion on the other party before seeking authorization to 
file a motion for sanctions. This change does not dispense with the 21-
day period to correct or withdraw the challenged paper or claim, or the 
necessity for authorization by the Board before a sanctions motion is 
filed.
    Comment 5: One comment expressed concern that the proposed rule is 
ambiguous and saw a conflict between the proposed rule and 37 CFR 
42.12.
    Response: The Office does not see any conflict between the proposed 
rule, which concerns the duty of candor and motions for sanctions, and 
37 CFR 42.12. In fact, the proposed rule specifically refers to section 
42.12 and requires sanctions to be consistent with that rule.
    Comment 6: Some comments suggested that the final section of the 
proposed rule, providing exceptions for disclosures, discovery 
requests, responses, and objections, is inconsistent with other 
provisions and should be eliminated.
    Response: These comments are adopted. In the final rule, paragraph 
(e) of the proposed rule is eliminated.
    Comment 7: One comment suggested that the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of the proposed rule be eliminated as 
unreasonably strict.
    Response: The comment is not adopted. Similar provisions are 
present in 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2). The Office believes these provisions 
provide needed guidance as to what representations are covered by the 
duty of candor. The final rule, therefore, specifically incorporates 
Rule 11.18(b)(2).
    Comment 8: One comment suggested that the sanctions provisions 
should not apply to law firms.
    Response: The comment is adopted. The sanctions provision is 
modified in the final rule to eliminate sanctions on law firms. The 
Office believes that sanctions directed to practitioners and parties 
are sufficient deterrents.
    Comment 9: One comment suggested that Sec.  42.11(d)(4) of the 
proposed rule be revised to limit the requirement for consistency with 
37 CFR 42.12 to sanctions on a party.
    Response: The comment is not adopted. The Office does not see a 
basis for a distinguishing between parties, practitioners, and others 
who might be subject to sanctions.
    Comment 10: One comment suggested that the Office may not be 
authorized by statute to sanction pre-institution actions. The same 
comment suggested that the Office may not be authorized to issue 
sanctions for behavior other than improper use of the proceeding and 
suggests eliminating paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) from the final 
rule for this reason.
    Response: The comments are not adopted. The proposed rule is 
consistent with the statute, including provisions which give the 
Director authority to prescribe regulations ``governing'' inter partes 
reviews and specifically require the Director to prescribe regulations 
``prescribing sanctions for abuse of discovery, abuse of process, or 
any other improper use of the proceeding, such as to harass and cause 
delay or an unnecessary increase in the cost of a proceeding.'' 35 
U.S.C. 316(a)(4), 316(a)(6). Similar provisions apply to post grant and 
covered business method patent reviews. 35 U.S.C. 326(a)(4), 326(a)(6). 
Other pertinent statutory provisions include 35 U.S.C. 316(b) and 
326(b) (Director shall consider ``integrity of the patent system'' in 
prescribing regulations.).
    Improper use of the proceeding covers a broad range of prohibited 
activities including those in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of the 
proposed rule. See 37 CFR 42.12. The Office, therefore, does not agree 
that the statute limits the Office's power to impose sanctions as set 
forth in the comment.
    Comment 11: One comment raised due process concerns arising from 
the risk of inconsistent enforcement by different panels. The comment 
suggested that the final rule require the Board to consider the 
sanctions that likely would be provided by federal courts for 
comparable conduct.
    Response: The comment is not adopted. The Office believes that the 
proposed rule and Rule 42.12 (37 CFR 42.12) provide adequate guidance 
to the Board on sanctions, thereby minimizing risk of inconsistent 
enforcement by different panels.
    Comment 12: One comment suggested adding the following at the end 
of Sec.  42.11(d)(3) of the proposed rule: ``and why a specific 
sanction by the Board should not be imposed.''
    Response: The comment is adopted. The final rule includes this 
addition. However, the Office does not view this addition as 
restricting the Board's discretion to determine what sanctions might be 
appropriate after considering the motion.
    Comment 13: One comment suggested removing the references to 
``claims'' and ``defenses'' in the proposed rule because they are 
unclear.
    Response: The comment is adopted. The final rule incorporates 37 
CFR 11.18(b)(2), which omits the reference to ``claims'' and 
``defenses.''
    Comment 14: One comment suggested that the Office provide, in the 
final rule, a specific example of improper purpose in filing a 
petition.
    Response: The comment is not adopted. Because whether particular 
circumstances warrant sanctions is a highly fact dependent question, 
the Office will follow a case-by-case approach. The Office will provide 
further guidance through its written decisions addressing particular 
factual scenarios.
    Comment 15: One comment suggested adding a ``meet and confer'' 
requirement before filing a motion for sanctions.
    Response: The comment is not adopted. A specific meet and confer 
requirement is not necessary, as the Office expects that before a 
motion for sanctions is filed, the party whose actions are being 
challenged has received a proposed motion and had 21 days to take 
corrective action. Before authorizing a motion for sanctions, the Board 
will ascertain that these procedures, necessitating communications 
between the parties, have been followed.

General Topics

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office proposed using a 
word count for the petition, patent owner preliminary response, patent 
owner response, and petitioner's reply brief. For all other briefing, 
the Office will maintain a page limit. The Office noted that this 
change will allow the Office to gain administrative efficiencies. For 
example, with the use of word counts for the main briefings for

[[Page 18762]]

AIA proceedings, petitions will no longer be reviewed to determine if 
any claim charts contain argument, thereby streamlining administrative 
review of petitions and reducing the number of non-compliant petitions 
that require correction. In addition to the comments concerning word 
count for major briefing, the Office received comments on other general 
topics that will be addressed below.
    Comment 1: The majority of commenters favor the change to a word 
count for major briefing, which they agree would be more efficient and 
promote better advocacy. Some commenters requested that administrative 
items, such as mandatory notices, be excluded from the word count. 
Another commenter requested that the parties be able to include a one-
page sheet providing definitions of technical terms that would not be 
included in the word count.
    Response: The Office agrees in part with the comments and will 
exclude grounds for standing under 37 CFR 42.104, 42.204, or 42.304, 
and mandatory notices under 37 CFR 42.8 from the word count for major 
briefing. The Office does not believe that excluding a definition 
section from the word count is necessary.
    Comment 2: Several commenters advocated improvements to the Board's 
Web site and docketing case system. Suggestions included improving PRPS 
to be able to search by patent owner, to be able to store more than ten 
documents without degrading responsiveness, to accurately post the 
status of cases, and to improve the reliability of PRPS in general.
    Response: The Office has considered the commenters' suggestions and 
is working with vendors to develop a new electronic filing system with 
additional functionality such as searching in the case docketing 
system.
    Comment 3: One commenter sought clarification on a party's ability 
to confer with a witness during the deposition, especially between 
cross-examination and re-direct, which the commenter asserted 
encourages rehearsal of testimony for re-direct.
    Response: The Office appreciates the comment concerning when a 
party may confer with its witness during a deposition, but believes 
that the guidance in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide strikes the 
correct balance concerning when a party may confer with its witness.
    Comment 4: One commenter suggested that notice and comment is 
required for this rulemaking under the APA, and encouraged the Office 
to continue to subject future rule changes to the notice and comment 
process.
    Response: The Office appreciates this comment, but disagrees that 
notice and comment is required for this rulemaking under the APA. This 
rule makes changes to the procedural requirements governing practice 
before the Office. Under current case law, such actions are not 
considered to be substantive rulemakings, and are exempt from the APA's 
notice and comment requirements. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 
F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and 
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rulemaking 
for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice''). Nevertheless, the 
Office values public input in its rulemaking actions, and notes that it 
did provide prior notice and a comment period for this rulemaking, as 
well as other public outreach in connection with these rule revisions. 
The Office continues to value public outreach and input from the public 
in its rulemaking efforts.

Recognizing Privilege for Communications With Domestic Patent Agents 
and Foreign Patent Practitioners

    In 2015, the Office launched an outreach initiative to explore 
various issues associated with confidential communications with patent 
agents or foreign patent practitioners. The Office published a notice 
convening a roundtable in February 2015 and requesting public comments. 
See Domestic and International Issues Related to Privileged 
Communications Between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients, 80 FR 
3953 (Jan. 26, 2015). Nineteen parties submitted written comments in 
response to the Federal Register notice, which are available on the 
USPTO Web site at: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/roundtable-domestic-and-international-issues-related-privileged. 
Some of these comments raised the issue of unclear or inconsistent 
privilege rules for agents and foreign practitioners during discovery 
in PTAB proceedings.
    Consistent with that earlier outreach initiative, the Office sought 
comments in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of 
attorney-client privilege or other limitations on discovery in PTAB 
proceedings, including on whether rules regarding privilege should be 
issued in connection with PTAB proceedings. The Office noted that such 
rules could, for example, explicitly recognize privilege for 
communications between patent applicants or owners and their domestic 
patent agents or foreign patent practitioners, under the same 
circumstances as such privilege is recognized for communications 
between applicants or owners and U.S. attorneys. See In re Queens 
University at Kingston, No 2015-145, slip op. at 26-27 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 
7, 2015) (recognizing a patent-agent privilege extending to 
communications with non-attorney patent agents when those agents are 
acting within the agent's authorized practice of law before the Patent 
Office). The Office invited the public to provide any comments on 
language, scope, or other considerations for creating such a privilege, 
including possible amendments to any of 37 CFR 42.51, 42.52, 42.55, 
42.62, or 42.64 to accomplish this purpose.
    The Office appreciates the thoughtful comments that it received in 
response and will address these comments in a separate notice, if any 
further action is taken.

Discussion of Specific Rules

Subpart A--Trial Practice and Procedure

Claim Construction Standard
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b) as 
follows:
     Amend 37 CFR 42.100(b) to add the phrase ``that will not 
expire before a final written decision is issued'' after ``an unexpired 
patent'' and add that a party may request a district court-type claim 
construction approach be applied if a party certifies that the involved 
patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of 
Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request must be accompanied by a 
party's certification, and be made in the form of a motion under Sec.  
42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
     Amend 37 CFR 42.200(b) to add the phrase ``that will not 
expire before a final written decision is issued'' after ``an unexpired 
patent'' and add that a party may request a district court-type claim 
construction approach be applied if a party certifies that the involved 
patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of 
Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request must be accompanied by a 
party's certification, and be made in the form of a motion under Sec.  
42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
     Amend 37 CFR 42.300(b) to add the phrase ``that will not 
expire before a final written decision is issued'' after ``an unexpired 
patent'' and add that a party may request a district court-type claim 
construction approach be applied if a party certifies that the involved 
patent will expire within 18 months

[[Page 18763]]

from the entry of Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The 
request must be accompanied by a party's certification, and be made in 
the form of a motion under Sec.  42.20, within 30 days from the filing 
of the petition.
Patent Owner Preliminary Response
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.23(b) by:
     Substituting ``opposition, patent owner preliminary 
response, or patent owner response'' for ``opposition or patent owner 
response.''
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.107(a) to indicate that a preliminary 
response filed by the patent owner is subject to the word count under 
Sec.  42.24, rather than a page limit.
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.107 to delete paragraph (c).
    The Office revises 37 CFR 42.108(c) to indicate that the Board's 
decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response 
where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but 
a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence 
will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for 
purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. A 
petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response, 
but any such request must make a showing of good cause.
    The Office revises 37 CFR 42.207(a) to indicate that a preliminary 
response filed by the patent owner is subject to the word count under 
Sec.  42.24, rather than a page limit.
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.207 to delete paragraph (c).
    The Office revises 37 CFR 42.208(c) to indicate that during post-
grant reviews, the Board's decision will take into account a patent 
owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including 
any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created 
by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable 
to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute 
a post-grant review. A petitioner may file a reply to the preliminary 
response, but any such response must make a showing of good cause.
Oral Hearing
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.70(b) to require at least seven, not 
just five, days before oral argument for exchange of exhibits.
Word Count
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.24 to implement a word count limitation 
for petitions, patent owner preliminary responses, patent owner 
responses, and petitioner's replies, by:
     Adding ``Type-volume or'' to the title;
     adding ``word counts or'' before ``page limits''; adding 
``word count or'' before ``page limit''; adding ``grounds for standing 
under Sec. Sec.  42.104, 42.204, or 42.304, mandatory notices under 
Sec.  42.8,'' after ``a table of authorities,'' and adding ``or word 
count'' after ``a certificate of service'' in paragraph (a)(1);
     substituting ``14,000 words'' for ``60 pages'' in 
(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(iv);
     substituting ``18,700 words'' for ``80 pages'' in 
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii);
     substituting ``word counts'' for the first three instances 
of ``page limits'' and ``word count'' for the two instances of ``page 
limit'' in paragraph (a)(2), and adding ``word counts or'' before 
``page limits'' in the last sentence;
     adding ``word counts or'' before the ``page limits'' in 
paragraph (b);
     substituting ``word counts'' for the two instances of 
``page limits'' in paragraph (b)(1);
     substituting ``word counts'' for the two instances of 
``page limits'' in paragraph (b)(2);
     adding ``word counts or'' before the two instances of 
``page limits'' and adding ``or word count'' after ``a certificate of 
service'' in paragraph (c);
     substituting ``5,600 words'' for ``25 pages'' in paragraph 
(c)(1);
     adding a new paragraph that implements a requirement for a 
certification, stating the number of words, for any paper whose length 
is specified by type-volume limits.
Rule 11-Type Certification
    The Office amends 37 CFR 42.11 to add ``signing papers; 
representations to the Board; sanctions'' to the title of the section, 
to designate existing text as paragraph (a) and to add a subheading to 
that paragraph, and to add new paragraphs that implement a signature 
requirement, as set forth in Rule 11.18(a), for every petition, 
response, written motion, and other paper filed in a proceeding; 
provide the representations that an attorney, registered practitioner, 
or unrepresented party makes when presenting to the Board a petition, 
response, written motion, or other paper; and set forth the process and 
conditions under which the Board will impose sanctions if the Board 
determines that Sec.  41.11(c) has been violated.

Rulemaking Considerations

A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    This final rule revises the consolidated set of rules relating to 
Office trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, the 
transitional program for covered business method patents, and 
derivation proceedings. The changes being adopted in this notice do not 
change the substantive criteria of patentability. These changes involve 
rules of agency practice. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5), as amended. 
These rules are procedural and/or interpretive rules. See Bachow 
Commc'ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules 
governing an application process are procedural under the 
Administrative Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 
F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules for handling appeals were 
procedural where they did not change the substantive requirements for 
reviewing claims); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of 
Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that 
clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive); JEM Broad. Co. 
v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (rules are not legislative 
because they do not ``foreclose effective opportunity to make one's 
case on the merits'').
    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are 
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law), and 
thirty-day advance publication is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
553(d) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 
1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 
U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rulemaking for 
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice'') (quoting 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(A)); U.S. v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 476 (4th Cir. 2009) (``The APA 
also requires publication of any substantive rule at least 30 days 
before its effective date, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), except where the rule is 
interpretive * * *.'').

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    For the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for 
General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that changes adopted in this notice will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    The changes adopted in this document are to revise certain trial 
practice procedures before the Board. Any requirements resulting from 
these changes are of minimal or no additional burden to those 
practicing before the

[[Page 18764]]

Board. Specifically, changes pertaining to representations made to the 
Office would not present any additional burden as the duty of candor 
and good faith are already requirements under existing Board trial 
practice (37 CFR 42.11), USPTO rules of professional conduct, and, for 
those who are attorneys, applicable State bars. Second, changes imposed 
by converting certain page limits to word counts for petitions and 
motions are not expected to result in any material change to filings, 
other than the addition of a certification that the filing is 
compliant. Finally, the changes pertaining to the inclusion of 
supporting evidence in a patent owner preliminary response to petition 
are not required to be filed, but merely available to parties should 
they choose. Moreover, the Office anticipates that the vast majority of 
those that will provide such supporting evidence during the petition 
review stage would have provided such information later anyway, if and 
when, a trial were instituted.
    For the foregoing reasons, the changes in this notice will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, 
the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a 
reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; 
(2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent 
with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory 
approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance 
objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) 
involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives 
among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the 
private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access 
to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, 
simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and 
identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific 
and technological information and processes.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism 
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on 
one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. 
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under 
Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive 
Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 
Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under 
Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or 
safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive 
Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 
15, 1988).

K. Congressional Review Act

    Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
prior to issuing any final rule, the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office will submit a report containing the rule and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government 
Accountability Office. The changes in this final rule are not expected 
to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or 
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 
Therefore, this final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars 
(as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector 
mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 
100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no 
actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

M. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 
applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions which 
involve the use of technical standards.

O. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549) requires 
that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. This final rule involves 
information collection requirements which are subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). This rulemaking does not add any 
additional information requirements or fees for parties before the 
Board. Therefore, the Office is not resubmitting information collection 
packages to OMB for its review and approval because the revisions in 
this rulemaking do not materially change the information collections 
approved under OMB control number 0651-0069.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond

[[Page 18765]]

to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply 
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 42

    Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office amends 37 CFR 
part 42 as follows:

PART 42--TRIAL PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 42 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 6, 21, 23, 41, 135, 311, 312, 
316, 321-326; Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284; and Pub. L. 112-274, 
126 Stat. 2456.

Subpart A--Trial Practice and Procedure

0
2. Section 42.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  42.11  Duty of candor; signing papers; representations to the 
Board; sanctions.

    (a) Duty of candor. Parties and individuals involved in the 
proceeding have a duty of candor and good faith to the Office during 
the course of a proceeding.
    (b) Signature. Every petition, response, written motion, and other 
paper filed in a proceeding must comply with the signature requirements 
set forth in Sec.  11.18(a) of this chapter. The Board may expunge any 
unsigned submission unless the omission is promptly corrected after 
being called to the counsel's or party's attention.
    (c) Representations to the Board. By presenting to the Board a 
petition, response, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, 
filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney, registered 
practitioner, or unrepresented party attests to compliance with the 
certification requirements under Sec.  11.18(b)(2) of this chapter.
    (d) Sanctions--(1) In general. If, after notice and a reasonable 
opportunity to respond, the Board determines that paragraph (c) of this 
section has been violated, the Board may impose an appropriate sanction 
on any attorney, registered practitioner, or party that violated the 
rule or is responsible for the violation.
    (2) Motion for sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made 
separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct 
that allegedly violates paragraph (c) of this section. The motion must 
be authorized by the Board under Sec.  42.20 prior to filing the 
motion. At least 21 days prior to seeking authorization to file a 
motion for sanctions, the moving party must serve the other party with 
the proposed motion. A motion for sanctions must not be filed or be 
presented to the Board if the challenged paper, claim, defense, 
contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 
days after service of such motion or within another time the Board 
sets. If warranted, the Board may award to the prevailing party the 
reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the 
motion.
    (3) On the Board's initiative. On its own, the Board may order an 
attorney, registered practitioner, or party to show cause why conduct 
specifically described in the order has not violated paragraph (c) of 
this section and why a specific sanction authorized by the Board should 
not be imposed.
    (4) Nature of a sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must 
be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or 
comparable conduct by others similarly situated and should be 
consistent with Sec.  42.12.
    (5) Requirements for an order. An order imposing a sanction must 
describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

0
3. Section 42.23 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.23  Oppositions and replies.

* * * * *
    (b) All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made 
in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the 
corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent 
owner response.

0
4. Section 42.24 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  42.24  Type-volume or page-limits for petitions, motions, 
oppositions, and replies.

    (a) Petitions and motions. (1) The following word counts or page 
limits for petitions and motions apply and include any statement of 
material facts to be admitted or denied in support of the petition or 
motion. The word count or page limit does not include a table of 
contents, a table of authorities, grounds for standing under Sec.  
42.104, Sec.  42.204, or Sec.  42.304, mandatory notices under Sec.  
42.8, a certificate of service or word count, or appendix of exhibits 
or claim listing.
    (i) Petition requesting inter partes review: 14,000 words.
    (ii) Petition requesting post-grant review: 18,700 words.
    (iii) Petition requesting covered business method patent review: 
18,700 words.
    (iv) Petition requesting derivation proceeding: 14,000 words.
    (v) Motions (excluding motions to amend): 15 pages.
    (vi) Motions to Amend: 25 pages.
    (2) Petitions to institute a trial must comply with the stated word 
counts but may be accompanied by a motion to waive the word counts. The 
petitioner must show in the motion how a waiver of the word counts is 
in the interests of justice and must append a copy of proposed petition 
exceeding the word count to the motion. If the motion is not granted, 
the proposed petition exceeding the word count may be expunged or 
returned. Any other motion to waive word counts or page limits must be 
granted in advance of filing a motion, opposition, or reply for which 
the waiver is necessary.
    (b) Patent owner responses and oppositions. The word counts or page 
limits set forth in this paragraph (b) do not include a listing of 
facts which are admitted, denied, or cannot be admitted or denied.
    (1) The word counts for a patent owner preliminary response to 
petition are the same as the word counts for the petition.
    (2) The word counts for a patent owner response to petition are the 
same as the word counts for the petition.
    (3) The page limits for oppositions are the same as those for 
corresponding motions.
    (c) Replies. The following word counts or page limits for replies 
apply and include any statement of facts in support of the reply. The 
word counts or page limits do not include a table of contents, a table 
of authorities, a listing of facts which are admitted, denied, or 
cannot be admitted or denied, a certificate of service or word count, 
or appendix of exhibits.
    (1) Replies to patent owner responses to petitions: 5,600 words.
    (2) Replies to oppositions (excluding replies to oppositions to 
motions to amend): 5 pages.
    (3) Replies to oppositions to motions to amend: 12 pages.
    (d) Certification. Any paper whose length is specified by type-
volume limits must include a certification stating the number of words 
in the paper. A party may rely on the word count of the word-processing 
system used to prepare the paper.

0
5. Section 42.70 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 18766]]

Sec.  42.70  Oral argument.

* * * * *
    (b) Demonstrative exhibits must be served at least seven business 
days before the oral argument and filed no later than the time of the 
oral argument.

Subpart B--Inter Partes Review

0
6. Section 42.100 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.100  Procedure; pendency.

* * * * *
    (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a 
final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable 
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it 
appears. A party may request a district court-type claim construction 
approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent 
will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing 
Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party's 
certification, must be made in the form of a motion under Sec.  42.20, 
within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 42.107 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing and 
reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  42.107  Preliminary response to petition.

    (a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the 
petition. The response is limited to setting forth the reasons why no 
inter partes review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 314 and can 
include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the 
word count under Sec.  42.24.
* * * * *
    (c) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
8. Section 42.108 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.108  Institution of inter partes review.

* * * * *
    (c) Sufficient grounds. Inter partes review shall not be instituted 
for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the 
petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a 
reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the 
petition is unpatentable. The Board's decision will take into account a 
patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, 
including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material 
fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light 
most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding 
whether to institute an inter partes review. A petitioner may seek 
leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of 
good cause.

Subpart C--Post-Grant Review

0
9. Section 42.200 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.200  Procedure; pendency.

* * * * *
    (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a 
final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable 
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it 
appears. A party may request a district court-type claim construction 
approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent 
will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing 
Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party's 
certification, must be made in the form of a motion under Sec.  42.20, 
within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 42.207 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  42.207  Preliminary response to petition.

    (a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the 
petition. The response is limited to setting forth the reasons why no 
post-grant review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 324 and can 
include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the 
word count under Sec.  42.24.
* * * * *
    (c) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
11. Section 42.208 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.208  Institution of post-grant review.

* * * * *
    (c) Sufficient grounds. Post-grant review shall not be instituted 
for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the 
petition supporting the ground would, if unrebutted, demonstrate that 
it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged 
in the petition is unpatentable. The Board's decision will take into 
account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is 
filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of 
material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in 
the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of 
deciding whether to institute a post-grant review. A petitioner may 
seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a 
showing of good cause.

Subpart D--Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents

0
12. Section 42.300 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  42.300  Procedure; pendency.

* * * * *
    (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a 
final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable 
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it 
appears. A party may a request a district court-type claim construction 
approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent 
will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing 
Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party's 
certification, must be made in the form of a motion under Sec.  42.20, 
within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 28, 2016.
Michelle K. Lee,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-07381 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-16-P