Table of Contents. Active

Transcription

1 Table of Contents I. Patentability Requirements... 1 A. Prior Art Invalidity Reference Disclosure Anticipation (Section 102) Reissuance/Reexamination... 3 B. Invalidity Based on Enablement ( 1)... 3 C. Timing of Expiration Term Extension Patent Exhaustion (Implied License?)... 4 II. Other Defenses... 4 A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Substantial Question of Federal Patent Law... 4 III. Literal Infringement... 5 A. Indirect Infringement Induced Infringement... 5 IV. DOE Infringement... 5 A. Vitiation Bar/Specific Exclusion... 5 V. Relief... 5 A. Entire Market Value Rule/Convoyed Sales... 5 B. Willfulness Objectively Baseless... 5 C. Notice/Marking When and What Kind of Marking is Required... 6 D. Reasonable Royalty... 6 E. Lost Profits Non-Plaintiff Lost Profits... 6 VI. Claim Construction... 6 A. Special Constructions Broadest Reasonable Interpretation During Prosecution... 6 B. Claim Language Preambles Ordinary Meaning Open/Closed Claims, Generic and Negative Limitations Typographical/Drafting Errors Effect of Other Limitations in Claim Effect of Other Claims... 8 C. Written Description Lexicography Disclosed Embodiment(s) Disclaimer... 9 D. Prosecution History Issuing Application... 9 Active i

2 E. Extrinsic Evidence District Court Fact Findings... 9 F. Term-Specific Case Law G. Timing of Construction and Parties Positions VII. Procedural Law A. Circumstances for Modifying Law of the Case/Patent B. Preclusion Issue Preclusion - Collateral Estoppel C. Construction Statutes/Regulations D. Intervention (Rule 24) E. Staying Case Copending IPR/CBMR VIII. Federal Circuit Appeals A. New Arguments/Issues on Appeal/Waiver/Judicial Estoppel District Court/ITC Appeals B. Interlocutory Appeals (R. 54(b) and 1292(b)) Settlement of Underlying Case C. Issue Preclusion D. Appelate Jurisdiction Requirements and Timing for Notice of Appeal E. Remand Determination Judicial Notice on Appeal IX. Patent Office Proceedings A. Inter Partes Review Institution Amendments B. Third Party Challenges to Ex Parte Decisions Active ii

3 I. Patentability Requirements A. Prior Art Invalidity 1. Reference Disclosure What a particular reference discloses is a question of fact.... MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/15. a. Inherency i. Apparent Arrangement or Combination However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it d[oes] not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (C.C.P.A. 1962). Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., , 3/25/ Anticipation (Section 102) a. Claim Interpretation i. Prior Art Encompasses Claimed Range or Set Unpatentability for anticipation upheld where substantial evidence supports the Board s conclusion that [prior art reference] effectively teaches 15 combinations, of which one anticipates pending claim 1. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., , 3/25/15. b. Public Use Bar For 102(b) public use determinations, [t]he actions of an unaffiliated third party acting in secret are evaluated as if he stood in the place of the inventor. Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm n, , 1/9/15. Use under an expectation of secrecy of a later-patented item within sight of a public place, but without public access sufficient to distinguish the item from the prior art, was not public. Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm n, , 1/9/15. c. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue i. Claimed Properties Composition claim without function limitation obvious without regard to whether references taught the function identified in the method claims for making the composition. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., , 3/20/15. Active

4 ii. All Limitations Disclosed On the evidence before us, that determination [that a particular limitation was taught by the cited references] by the district court falls well within the wide discretion the court has to weigh expert credibility. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., , 3/20/15. d. Motivation/Apparent Reason to Combine Testimony that a POOSITA considering a first reference would not have had reason to combine it with a second reference does not create a genuine dispute if there is uncontradicted evidence that a POOSITA considering the second reference would have had reason to combine it with the first reference. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/15. What a particular reference discloses is a question of fact, as is the question of whether there was a reason to combine certain references. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/15. i. Nexus Only secondary considerations that result from novel combinations of claim limitations have nexus such that they need to be considered. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., , 3/25/15. e. Role of Prosecution History in Infringement Litigation While persuasive, the examiner s proffered rejection is not on its own dispositive, in large part because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) and district courts take different approaches in determining invalidity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., , 12/19/14, but see revised opinion of 3/23/15. f. Summary Judgment/JMOL Here, [patentee] s expert testified that integrating the [first reference] to [work with a portion of the second reference] in the manner required by the asserted claims would be beyond the technical ability of a skilled artisan. This provided the jury with a reasonable basis for finding that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant timeframe. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/15. Because there was substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that the [] references did not teach [a limitation] the jury was entitled to find that the [] references did not anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. Active

5 3. Reissuance/Reexamination Ultimately, the district court properly concluded that the theories presented during reexamination proved too weak when challenged in a judicial forum to rise to the level of unexpected results sufficient to rebut a strong case of obviousness. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., , 3/20/15. B. Invalidity Based on Enablement ( 1) a. Valid i. Construable A claim term that by itself, might suggest to someone unknowledgeable in the field multiple constructions is nevertheless definite if [t]he intrinsic record... makes sufficiently clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art... would understand the limitation-at-issue to call for a structure meeting the standard imposed by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., , 3/10/15 b. Claims with Relative Terms The relative nature of the claim does not itself make it indefinite, and NuVasive failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that human anatomy varies so significantly that reliance on the wellknown dimensions of human vertebrae makes the claims indefinite. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. C. Timing of Expiration 1. Term Extension a. Reductions of Extension [A] reasonable interpretation of the statute is that Congress intended to sanction not only applicant conduct or behavior that result in actual delay, but also those having the potential to result in delay irrespective of whether such delay actually occurred. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, , 2/26/15. Affirmed summary judgment upholding reduction in extension due to filing of a supplemental IDS after an initial reply to a restriction requirement. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, , 2/26/15. Active

6 2. Patent Exhaustion (Implied License?) a. Distinct Inventions A patentee granting handset manufacturers patent licenses does not exhaust patents to distinct inventions, even though based on a common specification that was subject to a restriction requirement, as against defendants who manage content and deliver it to handset users. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co., , 2/10/15. [E]xhaustion lifts legal restrictions on an authorized acquirer. The doctrine has never applied unless, at a minimum, the patentee s allegations of infringement, whether direct or indirect, entail infringement of the asserted claims by authorized acquirers either because they are parties accused of infringement or because they are the ones allegedly committing the direct infringement required by the indirect infringement charged against other parties. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co., , 2/10/15. II. Other Defenses A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1. Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction a. DJs Based on ANDAs Interests including the amount of revenue there will be from sales of olmesartan medoxomil, and who will get what portions of it, during a period of at least six months that would be impacted by a non-infringement judgment are sufficient to support jurisdiction even where the patent cannot be enforced. Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., , 3/31/ Substantial Question of Federal Patent Law a. Malpractice Claims No federal jurisdiction where plaintiff plead multiple bases per state law claim such that it could prevail [] under alternate bases that do not necessarily implicate an issue of substantive patent law. NeuroRepair, Inc. v. The Nath Law Group, , 1/15/15. Even though a patent law issue was actually disputed by the parties, that issue would not be of sufficient importance to the federal system as a whole, as required under the third part of the Gunn test. NeuroRepair, Inc. v. The Nath Law Group, , 1/15/15 (quoting Gunn). Active

7 III. Literal Infringement A. Indirect Infringement 1. Induced Infringement Additionally, [patentee] put forth enough evidence to support a jury finding of induced infringement. There was evidence that [the accused infringer] was aware of the patent prior to the litigation and that [it] specifically taught [third parties] to use the product [] in an infringing manner. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. IV. DOE Infringement A. Vitiation Bar/Specific Exclusion [V]itiation is not a separate argument from insubstantiality. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., n.3, , 3/2/15. V. Relief At least with respect to any particular sale, a patentee is entitled to either a reasonable royalty or lost profits not both. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. A. Entire Market Value Rule/Convoyed Sales District Court erred in denying JMOL of no convoyed sales. [Patentee] points to its marketing material, in which it touted the kits comprehensive set of instruments and implants including fully integrated neuromonitoring, streamlined access instrumentation, anatomically designed implants and percutaneous fixation systems. J.A This does not establish a functional relationship. This is the precise sort of convenience or business strategy excluded by American Seating. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. B. Willfulness 1. Objectively Baseless [W]e reject [the] argument that the mere fact a member of the previous panel dissented on this issue indicates that its position was reasonable Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., , 1/13/15 (with dissent by the same judge). a. Timing of Assessment Objective recklessness assessed in view of previous PTO proceedings. [Accused infringer] tried to get a patent on the subject matter of the patent on which it was sued. The subsequent decades of prior proceedings shaped what defenses [it] could raise once it was sued for infringement. Once it failed and the [] patent issued, [it] was left with an Active

8 exceptionally circumscribed scope of reasonable defense. so to have stood a reasonable chance of prevailing on this issue, [it] needed to raise new evidence or theories that were not considered in [previous proceedings. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., , 1/13/15. C. Notice/Marking 1. When and What Kind of Marking is Required [T]he statute is not so broad as to allow marking with a different patent with different claims to provide sufficient notice to the public. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., n. 5, , 12/19/14, but see revised opinion of 3/23/15. D. Reasonable Royalty [A] reasonable royalty compensates the owner not for the damage he suffered, but for the value of what was taken. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. E. Lost Profits 1. Non-Plaintiff Lost Profits Where Plaintiff received royalty payments due to a license [of] the patented technologies to related companies [] who would manufacture the patented devices, but did not sell the patented devices itself, that revenue stream is not recoverable. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., , 3/2/15. VI. Claim Construction A. Special Constructions 1. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation During Prosecution PTAB should apply broadest reasonable interpretation to claims of unexpired patent during IPR. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, , 2/4/15. B. Claim Language 1. Preambles a. Construed as Limitation i. Antecedant Reference Preamble repetitive motion pacing system for pacing a user found to be limiting when the user was found in body of the claim and the repetitive motion pacing system was found in the body of a dependent claim. In other words, use of preamble term in body of Active

9 dependent claim made it a limitation in the independent claim. Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int l, Inc., , 2/18/ Ordinary Meaning a. Time Frame Claim term customary interpreted as normally part of commercially available [claimed systems] at the time of the invention. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/15 b. Negative Limitations Claim limitation requiring that a particular signal be sent regardless of the type of... device attached did not exclude permanent attachment, because the language could be read with respect to multiple copies of the claimed device, even though only one device was claimed. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/ Open/Closed Claims, Generic and Negative Limitations a. Conjoined Elements The word attached must be given some meaning. As the Board explained, it would be illogical to regard one unit as being attached to itself. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, , 2/4/15. b. Identifiers: said, the, a, at least one, each, unitary, plurality, first, member, component the term component in and of itself indicates a multipart system Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., , 3/16/15. c. Defining/Positioning/Connecting Terms Limitation in a host device found not to require location within the chassis of the host device based on the claim language being vague as to a location requirement and specific specification examples located outside the chassis. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/ Typographical/Drafting Errors [B]ecause a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that [the claim term] means [interpretation different from what the court admits it would mean by itself... to someone unknowledgeable in the field ] adopting such a construction is not rewriting the claim limitation. Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., , 3/10/15. Active

10 5. Effect of Other Limitations in Claim a. Group Term Relevant to Component Term A means recited as part of one of five elements in the claim cannot be construed to cover a part of another of those five elements. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/ Effect of Other Claims a. Claim Differentiation i. Construction Defeats Differentiation Although claim differentiation is a useful analytic tool, it cannot enlarge the meaning of a claim beyond that which is supported by the patent documents, or relieve any claim of limitations imposed by the prosecution history. Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, , 2/12/15. b. Relationship Between Independent and Dependent Claims The district court found that dependent claims [] involved [a feature] and therefore independent claim 1 must not be limited to [exclude that feature.] However, dependent claims cannot broaden an independent claim from which they depend.... Thus, as claim 1 is limited to [exclude that feature] by its own plain meaning, it would be inappropriate to use the doctrine of claim differentiation to broaden claim 1 to include a limitation imported from a dependent claim. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., , 3/16/15. C. Written Description 1. Lexicography a. Definition by Intrinsic Use Importation approved even though Court acknowledged that the limitation [of short codes] does follow a description of the preferred embodiment. And [] the contested limitation is not found in the only other places that short codes are mentioned, the Abstract and Summary of the Invention. Supporting the importation, the Court found that Given that the entire invention is described by reference to a preferred embodiment, the argument that the limitation is raised in the context of the preferred embodiment is less persuasive. And the fact that the [] limitation is expressly tied to the purpose of the short codes, which [patentee] does not dispute is universal to the invention, also undermines this argument. Interdigital Commc ns, LLC v. Int l Trade Comm n, , 2/18/15 (nonprecedential). Active

11 2. Disclosed Embodiment(s) a. Presumption of Coverage Overcome i. Multiple Embodiments Where a feature required by specification disclaimer was not shown in one embodiment, the Court still included it as a limitation because [j]ust because an embodiment does not expressly disclose a feature does not mean that embodiment excludes that feature and in a case such as this, where the patent describes multiple embodiments, every claim does not need to cover every embodiment. Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int l, Inc., , 2/18/ Disclaimer Specification s statement that [t]hose [listed 19 objects] and other objects and features of the present invention are accomplished, as embodied and fully described herein, by a [] system that includes [list including a particular limitation] found to constitute an explicit disclaimer that limited that patent s claims by requiring the particular limitation. Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int l, Inc., , 2/18/15. D. Prosecution History 1. Issuing Application a. Changes Meaning Any explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by the inventor during patent examination is relevant [to] claim construction. Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, , 2/12/15. [T]he interested public has the right to rely on the inventor s statements made during prosecution, without attempting to decipher whether the examiner relied on them, or how much weight they were given. Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, , 2/12/15. E. Extrinsic Evidence 1. District Court Fact Findings We review the district court s claim construction here de novo because it relied only on evidence intrinsic to the 078 patent. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., , 3/17/15. Claim construction has evidentiary underpinnings and an appeals court must review a district court s fact findings, including fact findings about how a skilled artisan would understand the intrinsic evidence, under Rule 52 for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) Active

12 Even if the district court found that a particular example included subject matter that the appeals court was excluding from the claim, this sole factual finding does not override our analysis of the totality of the specification. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., , 3/16/15. F. Term-Specific Case Law Previous case used to support conclusion as to how the term was prominently used... in the computer field at the time of the inventions here. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/15. G. Timing of Construction and Parties Positions [A] district court may (and sometimes must) revisit, alter, or supplement its claim constructions (subject to controlling appellate mandates) to the extent necessary to ensure that final constructions serve their purpose of genuinely clarifying the scope of claims for the finder of fact. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/15. VII. Procedural Law A. Circumstances for Modifying Law of the Case/Patent A CAFC panel is bound, therefore, by the prior panel s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and that the district court had jurisdiction when the standing issue did not remain[] dormant in facts buried deep in the record, or [] was not recognized by either party or the trial court and where the district court s opinion discussing [the] standing challenge were attached to the opening brief [to the prior panel]. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., , 1/13/15. B. Preclusion 1. Issue Preclusion - Collateral Estoppel a. Same Issue of Law or Fact Necessary to Judgment A general verdict of noninfringement does not support issue preclusion as to one theory of noninfringement where the jury s verdict could be upheld on either of two theories, despite the trial court in the [first] case [holding], in response to the plaintiff s JMOL motion, that the jury s verdict could be sustained on either of the two theories of noninfringement that were presented to it. United Access Techs., LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, , 2/12/15. i. Invalidity of Different Claims Previous invalidity holding as to independent claim used as basis for issue preclusion on invalidity of dependent claim, because [t]he additional limitation here transmitting a hypertext statement over the Internet, rather than over a generic network does not Active

13 materially alter the question of the validity of claim 39. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, , 2/12/15. Obviousness of independent claim is the same issue of fact as previously adjudicated obviousness of dependent claim. Although claim 15 of the 492 patent, at issue here, was not explicitly invalidated in Newegg, we invalidated claim 41, which depends from claim 15. Id. at Therefore, the invalidity determination as to claim 41 extended to claim 15, as well. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, , 2/12/15. b. Actually Litigated to Final Judgment [I]ssue preclusion applies even though the precluding judgment (Newegg) comes into existence while the case as to which preclusion is sought (this case) is on appeal. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, , 2/12/15; see also Dana Corp. v. NOK, Inc., 882 F.2d 505, 508 (Fed. Cir. 1989). c. Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate the Issues. [Patentee] contends that it would have raised different or additional arguments on appeal if it had known that this court might reverse the district court on invalidity rather than only granting a new trial. But [Patentee] does not cite any case to support the notion that a full and fair opportunity to litigate is lacking where a party might have argued differently on appeal. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, , 2/12/15. C. Construction 1. Statutes/Regulations As this court has previously held, [u]nder the rule of ejusdem generis, which means of the same kind, where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified. Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, , 2/26/15. D. Intervention (Rule 24) Reversing denial of motion to intervene by a party with an exclusivity period interest in defending dismissal of a ANDA DJ complaint. Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., , 3/31/15. E. Staying Case 1. Copending IPR/CBMR Federal Circuit reversed and remanded district court s denial of a stay pending covered business method review of the patents-in-suit with instructions to stay the action. Versata Active

14 Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., , 11/20/14. (vacated on 2/27/15 due to prior settlement of underlying case) VIII. Federal Circuit Appeals A. New Arguments/Issues on Appeal/Waiver/Judicial Estoppel 1. District Court/ITC Appeals a. Claim Construction Waiver No waiver to seek correction of obvious error after ruling without rearguing all other points made prior to ruling. In the district court, [patentee] opposed the construction it now opposes, and it was not required to state its opposition twice. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., , 2/2/15. b. Arguments Regarding Summary Judgment or JMOL [A] single citation to the district court opinion in which appellants argue, in a footnote, that the district court acknowledged the vintage of the prior art, citing to portions of the district court opinion that merely recite the years in which the prior art was published. [] This is insufficient discussion to consider this argument raised at the district court, and this argument is, therefore, waived. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., , 3/20/15. B. Interlocutory Appeals (R. 54(b) and 1292(b)) 1. Settlement of Underlying Case Where the parties voluntary and unconditional dismissal mooted the appeal before the release of our prior opinion, we vacate the opinion and dismiss the appeal. Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., Order on Motion, , 2/27/15. C. Issue Preclusion D. Appelate Jurisdiction 1. Requirements and Timing for Notice of Appeal Since a ruling on a motion for relief [an extension of time to file] under Rule 4(a) is an issue not unique to patent law, we apply the law of the regional circuit here, the Fifth Circuit. Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., , 3/19/15. Under 5th circuit law, a party would not be entitled to relief even if it had received no [notices of electronic filing] notifying it of the court s order, therefore the district court was correct to require some additional evidence of excusable neglect or good cause. Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., , 3/19/15. Active

15 No abuse of discretion to deny extension request based on some notices of electronic filing being arguably incorrect when other notices were correct and fairly indicated that an appeal was triggered. Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., , 3/19/15. Rule 4(a)(6) requires, as a predicate, findings by the trial court that: (1) the movant did not receive notice of the entry of judgment; (2) the movant filed the motion in a timely fashion; and (3) no party would be prejudiced by a reopening of the time to appeal. Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., , 3/19/15. E. Remand Determination 1. Judicial Notice on Appeal Although appellate courts may consider only the record made before the district court, we may also consider, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), the fact that the PTAB has made a decision instituting CBM review. Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., , 11/20/14 (emphasis in original) (vacated on 2/27/15 due to prior settlement of underlying case) IX. Patent Office Proceedings A. Inter Partes Review 1. Institution [W]e lack jurisdiction to review the PTO s decision to institute IPR. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, , 2/4/ Amendments PTAB affirmed in refusing to allow amendment based on the new claim being broader in scope than the original claims. The same test applies in the context of IPRs. Therefore, we inquire whether [patentee] s proposed substitute claims would encompass any apparatus or process that would not have been covered by the original claims. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, , 2/4/15. B. Third Party Challenges to Ex Parte Decisions We affirm the dismissal, on the ground that PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge. Exela Pharm Scis., LLC v. Lee, , 3/26/15. Active