{"id":132,"date":"2016-09-18T17:13:48","date_gmt":"2016-09-18T17:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/?p=132"},"modified":"2019-08-29T16:36:22","modified_gmt":"2019-08-29T16:36:22","slug":"first-decision-on-inter-partes-review-ipr-proceedings-in-supreme-court-of-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/first-decision-on-inter-partes-review-ipr-proceedings-in-supreme-court-of-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"First Decision on Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings in Supreme Court of United States"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of United States issued its first decision addressing IPR proceedings\u2014<strong><em>Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court\u2019s decision upheld the&nbsp;<strong>claim construction standard<\/strong>&nbsp;(\u201cbroadest reasonable interpretation\u201d BRI rather than the \u201cplain and ordinary meaning\u201d standard applicable in courts) applied in IPR proceedings and confirmed that appeals may only be taken from the board\u2019s final written decisions and the&nbsp;<strong>Institution Decisions Are Not Appealable.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For more detailed analysis and its impact on IPR proceedings and patent drafting tips to overcome closest prior art(s) considering the BRI standard during IPR proceedings keep watching this space or write to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. Argued on April 25, 2016 and Decided on June 20, 2016<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Read the full opinion&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/15pdf\/15-446_ihdk.pdf\">here<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of United States issued its first decision addressing IPR proceedings\u2014Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The court\u2019s decision upheld the&nbsp;claim construction standard&nbsp;(\u201cbroadest reasonable interpretation\u201d BRI rather than the \u201cplain and ordinary meaning\u201d standard applicable in courts) applied in IPR proceedings and confirmed that appeals may only be taken from the board\u2019s final written decisions [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,4,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drug","category-ipr","category-patent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions\/133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipaatentiti.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}