The US Supreme Court has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) use of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, ruling in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee (2015-446) that the Patent Office had acted within the rulemaking authority granted to it by Congress when it mandated that standard. In an opinion issued on June 20, the Court also held that IPR institution decisions are statutorily barred from judicial review, further asserting that a ruling to the contrary would contradict Congress’ clear intent to grant the Patent Office “significant power” to review and revise patent grants.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies filed eight new suits this month, tripling the number of patent assertion litigations initiated by the entity. A subsidiary of Empire IP, Cuozzo filed its first litigation in 2012 and these are its first new suits since that time. The cases are against Fujitsu, Fullpower Technologies, MITAC, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Reach Unlimited, Rand McNally, and Verizon, and each one asserts a single patent (6,778,074). The ‘074 patent, the only patent asserted in litigation by Cuozzo, relates to a GPS-based speed limit indicator. Defendants’ GPS navigation products that include a speed limit warning are accused of infringement. The patent-in-suit was subject to IPR proceedings filed in September 2012, and in November 2013 claims 10, 14, and 17 were cancelled. The remaining claims were not subject to IPR. 6/17, Eastern District of Texas, 4:14cv00393, 4:14cv00394, 4:14cv00395, 4:14cv00396, 4:14cv00397, 4:14cv00398, 4:14cv00399, 4:14cv00400

On November 13, 2013, the USPTO  Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)  issued its first ruling under the new standards for inter partes review (IPR) set up by the America Invents Act. The PTAB granted Garmin’s request to cancel three claims of patent No. 6,778,074 as obvious in light of prior art.  Cuozzo Speed Technologies, an Empire IP subsidiary, asserted the ‘074 patent against Garmin in New Jersey district court on June 15, 2012, alleging that Garmin’s navigation systems infringe the patent’s claims directed towards the use of GPS-based speed limit indicators.  Garmin filed its petition for inter partes review on the first day such AIA filings were allowed, in September 2012, which was granted by the PTAB in January 2013 in regards to independent claim 10 and dependent claims 14 and 17.  In its inter partes decision, the PTAB first construed the claims and then found that Garmin had met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the three claims at issue were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on a combination of 4 references.  In doing so, the PTAB denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend the ‘074 patent’s claims, as well as its arguments relating to prior conception and due diligence.  However, the PTAB did not consider independent claim 1, and the infringement lawsuits between Cuozzo and Garmin, General Motors, Tom Tom, and JVC Americas remain ongoing in the New Jersey district court.