Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 2014-1301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2012-00001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF FOR INTERVENOR – DIRECTOR OF
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATHAN K. KELLEY
`Solicitor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER
`ROBERT J. MCMANUS
`Associate Solicitors
`Office of the Solicitor – Mail Stop 8
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`571-272-9035
`
`Attorneys for the Director of the
`United States Patent and
`Trademark Office
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 5, 2014
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-1
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`Representative Claim
`
`10. A speed limit indicator comprising:
`
`
`a global positioning system receiver;
`
`a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver,
`wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to
`signals from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update
`the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at
`a vehicle’s present location; and
`
`a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.
`
`A58, col. 7, ll. 1-11 (emphasis added to indicate disputed claim term).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-2
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`A. Decision To Institute ............................................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 3
`
`
`Final Written Decision .......................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
`
`Statutory And Regulatory Background ................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Administrative Review Of Issued Patents .................................. 4
`
`Inter Partes Review Procedures Under The AIA ........................ 5
`
`USPTO Rules For Inter Partes Review ...................................... 7
`
`Factual Background And Procedural History ....................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’074 Patent: A Speed Limit Indicator That Indicates
`Both A Vehicle’s Speed And The Pertinent Speed Limit .......... 8
`
`The Prior Art: Devices And Methods For Displaying
`Both Vehicle Speed And The Pertinent Speed Limit ............... 10
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Aumayer ......................................................................... 10
`
`Evans ............................................................................... 11
`
`c. Wendt .............................................................................. 12
`
`d.
`
`Tegethoff......................................................................... 13
`
`i
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-3
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`e.
`
`Awada ............................................................................. 14
`
`The Board’s Decision To Institute The Inter Partes
`Review ...................................................................................... 15
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision ......................................... 17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claim construction .......................................................... 17
`
`Obviousness over Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt ............ 20
`
`Obviousness over Tegethoff, Awada, Evans, and
`Wendt .............................................................................. 23
`
`d.
`
`Denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend ............................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................ 26
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Standard Of Review ............................................................................ 27
`
`This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review The Director’s
`Decision To Institute An Inter Partes Review Of The ’074
`Patent ................................................................................................... 29
`
`Congress Expressly Barred Judicial Review Of The
`USPTO’s Decision Whether To Institute An Inter Partes
`Review ...................................................................................... 29
`
`a.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(d) expressly bars Cuozzo’s
`challenge ......................................................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-4
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`The history of appeals from USPTO post-grant
`proceedings
`further
`undermines Cuozzo’s
`arguments ........................................................................ 34
`
`Cuozzo’s Arguments Challenging The Board’s Decision
`To Institute The Inter Partes Review Lack Merit ..................... 37
`
`The Board Correctly Concluded That Claims 10, 14, And 17 Of
`The ’074 Patent Were Unpatentable For Obviousness ....................... 39
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Board Properly Applies The USPTO’s Longstanding
`“Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Standard In Inter
`Partes Review Proceedings ....................................................... 39
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The promulgation of the regulation specifying that
`the BRI standard applies in inter partes reviews
`was well within the USPTO’s authority ......................... 40
`
`Cuozzo’s invocation of the word “procedural”
`does not alter the analysis ............................................... 44
`
`The Board’s Claim Construction Was Reasonable .................. 45
`
`The Board Correctly Concluded That Claim 10 Was
`Obvious Over Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt ............................. 51
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Aumayer determines “the speed limit at a vehicle’s
`present location,” as claimed .......................................... 52
`
`to
`The Board correctly found a motivation
`combine Aumayer, Evans, and Wendt ........................... 54
`
`The Board Correctly Concluded That Claim 10 Was
`Obvious Over Tegethoff, Awada, Evans, and Wendt .............. 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-5
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 6 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`The Board Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Cuozzo’s
`Motion To Amend ............................................................................... 60
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 62
`
`iv
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-6
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 7 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 7 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) ................................................................ 28
`
`Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................................... 33
`
`In re Carr, 297 F. 542 (D.C. Cir. 1924) ............................................................. 41
`
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................................................................................ 27, 45
`
`
`Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197 (1938) ............ 28
`
`Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................... 4, 45
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 59
`
`
`Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ......................................................... 42
`
`FTC v. Standard Oil, 449 U.S. 232 (1980)......................................................... 33
`
`Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................... 59
`
`Gleave, In re, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................... 28
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 58
`
`
`Hiniker Co., In re, 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................... 32, 35
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., In re, 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................ 59
`
`Jolley, In re, 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................... 28
`
`
`
`Kotzab, In re, 217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................... 28
`
`
`v
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-7
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 8 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 8 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases (continued):
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................... 50, 51
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 55, 56
`
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................ 41, 42
`
`Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Prods., Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......... 27
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................. 50, 51
`
`Mettke, In re, 570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................... 28
`
`Morgan v. Principi, 327 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................... 34
`
`Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................... 29
`
`Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Imp. Int’l, Inc.,
`73 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................................................................... 28
`
`
`Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............... 58
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................... 16
`
`Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1969) .................................................... 41
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 48
`
`
`Skvorecz, In re, 580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................... 42, 45
`
`St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp.,
`___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1623676 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014) ...... 29, 31, 32, 35
`
`
`Sullivan, In re, 362 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................. 28
`
`vi
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-8
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 9 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 9 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases (continued):
`
`
`Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............... 59
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................. 42
`
`United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966) ...................................................... 50
`
`United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............................................ 40
`
`Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................. 41, 42, 45
`
`Statutes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 704 ..................................................................................................... 33
`
` 5
`
` U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) .................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 2(b) .................................................................................................. 44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................... 4, 15, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................. 25, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) .............................................................................................. 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 143 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................... 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 303 ............................................................................................... 4, 34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 304 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`vii
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-9
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 10 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 10 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`Statutes (continued):
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 (2000) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 (2000) ................................................................................... 5, 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................. 33, 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 (2000) ....................................................................................... 36
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 ........................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`American Inventors Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501,
`Sec. 4601-04 (1999) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................................................... passim
`
`
`Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) ............................................................ 4
`
`
`Regulations:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R., part 42 .................................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4 .................................................................................................... 7
`
`viii
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-10
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 11 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 11 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`Regulations (continued):
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)-(d) ..................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................. 3, 7, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.120-42.123 ............................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 .............................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ......................................................................................... 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ..................................................................................... 3, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................... passim
`
`
`Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................... 40
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) ............................................................................... 6
`
`Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act:
`Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 539 (2012) ....................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-11
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 12 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 12 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`The Director is not aware of any appeal in connection with this case that has
`
`
`
`previously been before this Court, or that is currently pending in any other court.
`
`Garmin identified Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Garmin International Inc. et
`
`al., Case No.: 2:12-cv-03623-CCC-JAD (D.N.J.), as a related matter in its petition
`
`for inter partes review, but that matter has been terminated with prejudice.
`
`This Court’s decision in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America,
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2014-1194, may directly affect, or be directly affected by, this
`
`Court’s decision in this appeal. Garmin identified Cuozzo Speed Technologies
`
`LLC v. General Motors Co., Case No.: 2:12-cv-03624-CCC-JAD (D.N.J.), Cuozzo
`
`Speed Technologies LLC v. JVC Americas Corp., Case No.: 2:12-cv-03625-CCC-
`
`JAD (D.N.J.), Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. TomTom, Inc. et al., Case No.:
`
`2:12-cv-03626-CCC-JAD (D.N.J.), in its petition for inter partes review as judicial
`
`proceedings that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this matter, but those
`
`proceedings have been terminated with prejudice.
`
`x
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-12
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 13 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 13 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This appeal arises from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The Board entered its final
`
`written decision on November 13, 2013. Cuozzo filed a notice of appeal of the
`
`final written decision on January 8, 2014, within the time limit specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1). As explained in Section V.B of this brief, this Court lacks
`
`jurisdiction to review the USPTO’s decision to institute the inter partes review,
`
`which is “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). This Court otherwise has
`
`appellate jurisdiction over Cuozzo’s appeal of the Board’s final written decision
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`
`A. Decision To Institute
`
`
`Garmin petitioned the USPTO for an inter partes review of Cuozzo’s patent.
`
`The petition included various proposed grounds of unpatentability for the
`
`USPTO’s consideration, as well as several prior art references. The USPTO
`
`instituted the inter partes review for claims 10, 14 and 17 (with claim 17 depending
`
`from claim 14, which depends from claim 10) in Cuozzo’s patent, relying on a
`
`proposed ground of unpatentability Garmin asserted specifically only for claim 17.
`
`Cuozzo’s challenge to the decision to institute the inter partes review presents two
`
`questions:
`
`1
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-13
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 14 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 14 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the USPTO’s decision
`
`to institute the inter partes review.1
`
`2.
`
`If the Court has jurisdiction, whether the Board acted arbitrarily and
`
`capriciously in instituting inter partes review of both (1) claim 17, which the Board
`
`found met the statutory threshold; and (2) claims 10 and 14, from which claim 17
`
`depends, based on the same ground of rejection proposed in the petition.
`
`B.
`
`
`Final Written Decision
`
`Cuozzo’s patent is directed to a speed limit indicator that includes a
`
`speedometer integrally attached to an indicator showing which speeds on the
`
`speedometer violate the speed limit in the vehicle’s location. The Board concluded
`
`in its final written decision that the claims considered in the inter partes review
`
`were unpatentable for obviousness over two combinations of references disclosing
`
`various speedometers and indicators of speeds that violate the pertinent speed
`
`limit, but it did not conclude that those claims were unpatentable over prior art
`
`references with a single display. In so holding, the Board rejected Cuozzo’s
`
`argument that its claims encompass such a single display, which was perhaps
`
`driven by Cuozzo’s allegations in district court litigation that products with a
`
`single display infringe its patent. Instead, the Board construed the claims using the
`
`
`1
`The Director previously briefed this issue in the post-grant review context in
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., No. 2014-1194.
`
`2
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-14
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 15 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 15 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” standard required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`and long acknowledged to govern USPTO proceedings.
`
`The Board also denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend because (1) Cuozzo failed
`
`to establish that the proposed new claims were supported by the patent’s written
`
`description; and (2) Cuozzo’s amendment impermissibly enlarged the scope of the
`
`claims. Cuozzo’s challenge to the final written decision presents three questions:
`
`3. Whether the USPTO acted within its authority in promulgating 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b), specifying application of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard to inter partes review.2
`
`4. Whether the Board correctly concluded that the challenged claims of
`
`Cuozzo’s patent were obvious.
`
`5. Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying Cuozzo’s motion
`
`to amend.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Introduction
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (“Cuozzo”) owns U.S. Patent No.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`6,778,074 (“the ’074 patent”). Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Garmin”) filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) to institute an inter partes review of the ’074 patent. The USPTO
`
`2
`The Director previously briefed this issue in connection with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.300(b) in the Versata appeal.
`
`3
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-15
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 16 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 16 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`granted Garmin’s petition in part, instituting the inter partes review for claims 10,
`
`14, and 17 of the ’074 patent. The Board ultimately issued a final written decision
`
`concluding that those claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Cuozzo
`
`here challenges the Board’s final written decision. The Director of the USPTO
`
`intervened to defend the Board’s final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 143.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`Statutory And Regulatory Background
`
`1.
`
`Administrative Review Of Issued Patents
`
`Congress has long provided administrative mechanisms for third parties to
`
`ask the USPTO to reconsider the patentability of claims in an issued patent. In
`
`1980, Congress enacted the first statute authorizing ex parte reexamination. See
`
`Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified at 35 U.S.C. ch. 30 (1980)).
`
`Congress specified that the USPTO could grant a request for reexamination only if
`
`it raised “a substantial new question of patentability.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 303, 304.
`
`From the outset, Congress insulated some aspects of this administrative
`
`reconsideration process from judicial review. See 35 U.S.C. § 303(c) (providing
`
`that the USPTO’s determination “that no substantial new question of patentability
`
`has been raised will be final and nonappealable”).
`
`In 1999, Congress added an option for “inter partes” reexamination, which
`
`allowed the third-party requester to participate in the reexamination and, after
`
`2002, any subsequent appeal. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330,
`
`4
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-16
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 17 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 17 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008); American Inventors Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-113,
`
`113 Stat. 1501, Sec. 4601-04 (1999) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318
`
`(2000)). Congress authorized the USPTO to institute an inter partes
`
`reexamination, like an ex parte reexamination, only if the request raised “a
`
`substantial new question of patentability.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 312 (2000). And
`
`Congress again barred appeals of aspects of the USPTO’s decision to institute a
`
`reexamination, specifying that any determination regarding the existence of a
`
`“substantial new question of patentability” would be “final and non-appealable.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a), (c) (2000).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Inter Partes Review Procedures Under The AIA
`
`In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`
`Stat. 284 (2011), Congress substantially expanded the USPTO’s procedures for
`
`reconsidering the patentability of claims in issued patents. The AIA replaced inter
`
`partes reexamination with inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding before the
`
`renamed Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 311. The AIA also
`
`changed the threshold showing necessary for the USPTO to institute an inter partes
`
`proceeding, made all patents subject to such review regardless of the date on which
`
`they were issued, broadened the estoppel provisions to which petitioning parties
`
`would be subject, imposed strict timelines for completion of the review, and
`
`permitted an appeal to this Court only from the Board’s final written decision as to
`
`5
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-17
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 18 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 18 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`patentability. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 46-47 (2011); Joe Matal, A Guide to
`
`the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. B.J.
`
`539, 598 (2012). Any person other than the patent owner may petition to institute
`
`an inter partes review, and the petitioner may participate in the proceedings and
`
`any ensuing appeal. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 316, 319.
`
`Only the Board’s final written decision as to patentability in an inter partes
`
`review proceeding is subject to judicial review in this Court. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 318(a), 319. Congress provided that the USPTO’s threshold decision whether
`
`to institute an inter partes review—that is, the agency’s determination whether a
`
`particular petition for review satisfies the statutory criteria for commencement of a
`
`proceeding – shall be “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“The
`
`determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this
`
`section shall be final and nonappealable.”).
`
`The AIA also created “post-grant review,” see generally 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-
`
`329, and a special “transitional post-grant review proceeding for review of the
`
`validity of covered business method patents,” AIA § 18, which is known as “CBM
`
`review.” These proceedings both permit broader patentability challenges than inter
`
`partes review, see 35 U.S.C. § 321(b), but they involve similar procedures.
`
`6
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-18
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 19 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 19 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`USPTO Rules For Inter Partes Review
`
`To implement the AIA’s new administrative review schemes, Congress
`
`provided the USPTO with expanded rulemaking authority. See generally 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(a). The AIA authorizes the USPTO to “prescribe regulations . . .
`
`establishing and governing” inter partes review proceedings and to specify “the
`
`relationship of such review to other proceedings under this title,” among other
`
`matters. 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(4).
`
`Pursuant to those express statutory grants of rulemaking authority, the
`
`USPTO has prescribed regulations governing inter partes, post-grant, and CBM
`
`review proceedings, as well as general rules of practice before the Board. See
`
`generally 37 C.F.R., part 42. Among other matters, those rules delegate to the
`
`Board the Director’s authority to determine whether to institute particular
`
`proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. The rules also
`
`provide that, consistent with longstanding agency practice and this Court’s
`
`precedent, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`7
`
`PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY EX. 1005-19
`
`

`
`Case: 14-1301 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 19 Page: 20 Filed: 06/05/2014Case: 14-1301 Document: 20 Page: 20 Filed: 06/05/2014
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`Factual Background and Procedural History
`
`1.
`
`The ’074 Patent: A Speed Limit Indicator That Indicates Both A
`Vehicle’s Speed And The Pertinent Speed Limit
`
`The ’074 patent describes and claims a speed indicator with both a
`
`speedometer and a display controller for adjusting a colored display to indicate the
`
`speed limit in the vehicle’s location. The “description of the current embodiment”
`
`in the ’074 patent focuses on a speed limit indicator as shown in Figure 1 in which
`
`the “colored display 18 [is] made of a red plastic filter” that can be rotated within a
`
`speedometer 12 on which “speed denoting markings 16” are painted. A57,3 col. 5,
`
`ll.