PDF《Solicitor》

2015-1177 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-00159. Supplemental Brief on Rehearing En Banc for Intervenor―Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Of Counsel: MARK R. FREEMAN Appellate Staff, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 October 26,

2016 NATHAN K. KELLEY Solicitor SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER Senior Counsel for Patent Law and Litigation MEREDITH H. SCHOENFELD FARHEENA Y. RASHEED JOSEPH MATAL Associate Solicitors Office of the Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop 8, P.O. Box

1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 (571) 272-9035 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

1 Filed: 10/26/2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE EN BANC ORDER

1 II. INTRODUCTION.2 III. BACKGROUND

3 A. Statutory and regulatory framework governing motions to amend patents involved in inter partes review proceedings

3 IV. ARGUMENT

7 A. Standard of review

7 B. There is no basis to overturn the USPTO'

s rules and reasonable interpretation of the inter partes review statute placing the burden of persuasion on patent owners to prove that proposed substitute claims are patentable.8 1. The AIA'

s express grant of rulemaking authority for motions to amend includes the authority to assign burdens of proof for such motions

10 2. Statutory text and structure confirm the reasonableness of USPTO'

s interpretation.13 3. Established practices governing burdens of proof confirm the reasonableness of USPTO'

s interpretation

17 4. The drafting history of the AIA confirms the reasonableness of USPTO'

s interpretation

19 C. Aqua Products cannot show that placing the burden on the petitioner reflects Congress'

s intended functioning of inter partes review

21 1. On its face, § 316(e) does not apply to amendments

21 a) Aqua Products and the amici'

s inability to agree on what procedures § 316(e) mandates confirms that the section is, at least, ambiguous

25 2. Aqua Products'

argument rests on a misunderstanding of the Patent Act.27 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

2 Filed: 10/26/2016 ii 3. The AIA requires the USPTO to protect the public'

s interest in patent quality by ensuring that new or amended substitute claims are patentable.31 D. The Board may sua sponte raise patentability challenges to a proposed amended claim

35 V. CONCLUSION

36 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

3 Filed: 10/26/2016 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abbott Labs v. Cordis Corp.,

710 F.3d

1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)29 Auer v. Robbins,

519 U.S.

452 (1997)8,

12 Bamberg v. Dalvey,

815 F.3d

793 (Fed. Cir. 2016)18 Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found.,

402 U.S.

313 (1971)34 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

467 U.S.

837 (1984)7,

9 City of Arlington v. F.C.C.,

133 S. Ct.

1863 (2013)10 Coleman v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Police Dep'

t,

369 Md.

108 (Md. App. 2002)11 Commonwealth v. Miller,

585 Pa.

144 (Pa. 2005)11 Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas,

536 F.3d

1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008)8 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,

136 S.Ct.

2131 (2016)passim Dir. Office of Workers'

Comp. Programs, Dep'

t of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries,

512 U.S.

267 (1994)18 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.,

556 U.S.

208 (2009)8 Florida Dep'

t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,