PDF《Solicitor》

554 U.S.

33 (2008)14 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

4 Filed: 10/26/2016 iv Henderson v. Shinseki,

562 U.S.

428 (2011)14 Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR 2012-00027,

2013 WL

5947697 (PTAB June 11, 2013)6,

33 Kubota v. Shibuya,

999 F.2d

517 (Fed. Cir. 1993)18 Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,

672 F.3d

1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)30 MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015C00040,

2015 WL

4383224 (PTAB July 15, 2015)6,

33 Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.,

320 U.S.

661 (1944)34 Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,

789 F.3d

1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015)6, 13, 30,

35 National Cable and Telecomm. Ass'

n v. Gulf Power Co.,

534 U.S.

327 (2002)14 Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,

812 F.3d

1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)6, 7, 13,

22 Precision Instrument Mfg. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co.,

324 U.S.

806 (1945)34 Schaffer ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast,

546 U.S.

49 (2005)23 Selma, Rome &

Dalton R. Co. v. United States,

139 U.S.

560 (1891)23 State v. Devon D.,

321 Conn.

656 (Conn. 2016)11 Sullivan, In re,

362 F.3d

1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)8 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

5 Filed: 10/26/2016 v Suprema, Inc. v. ITC,

796 F.3d

1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015)13 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,

814 F.3d

1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)17 Trivascular, Inc. v. Shaun L. W. Samuels,

812 F.3d

1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016)32 United States v. Mead Corp.,

533 U.S.

218 (2001)9,

13 United States v. Real Prop. in Section 9, Town

29 North, Range

1 of Charlton, W. Twp. Otsego Cnty., Michigan,

241 F.3d

796 (6th Cir. 2001)11 Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 252.30

35 U.S.C. § 311.24

35 U.S.C. §

314 (pre-AIA)21

35 U.S.C. § 316.passim

35 U.S.C. § 317.32

35 U.S.C. § 318.passim Regulations

37 C.F.R. § 42.121.6

37 C.F.R. § 42.20 6,

17 37 C.F.R., part

42 6 Other Authorities

154 Cong. Rec. S9987 (daily ed. Sep. 27, 2008)29

157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)29 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

6 Filed: 10/26/2016 vi

157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)29

157 Cong. Rec. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)17,

29 C. Mueller &

L. Kirkpatrick, Evidence § 3.1, p.

104 (3d ed. 2003)17 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( AIA ), Pub. L. No. 112-29,

125 Stat.

284 (2011)3,

24 MPEP § 2308.02.18 Pub. L. No. 109-54 (2005), § 1005.11 STANDARD OF PROOF, Black'

s Law Dictionary

1535 (9th ed. 2009)10 Standing Order 208.5.1 (Mar. 8, 2011), (Jan. 3, 2006)19 Case: 15-1177 Document:

125 Page:

7 Filed: 10/26/2016

1 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE EN BANC ORDER This Court has requested supplemental briefing on the following questions: 1. When the patent owner moves to amend its claims under

35 U.S.C. § 316(d), may the PTO require the patent owner to bear the burden of persuasion, or a burden of production, regarding patentability of the amended claims as a condition of allowing them? Which burdens are permitted under

35 U.S.C. § 316(e)? A Answer: Yes, the USPTO may place the burden of persuasion on the patent owner to demonstrate patentability of the proposed claims because the Director is delegated the authority to establish standards and procedures for amendments (which include burdens of proof) under

35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(9). As explained in the USPTO'

s precedential decision of MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., the USPTO has placed that burden on patent owners by operation of

37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c) and 42.121, which govern substitution of claims in inter partes review proceedings. Placing that burden on the patent owners is fully consistent with normal practice and common sense, and nothing in the text or legislative history of the AIA suggests that Congress would have intended for the burden to be placed solely on petitioners. In particular, § 316(e) is not to the contrary: That provision makes no reference to proposed substitute claims or to § 316(d), and cannot override the USPTO'