US Supreme Court to hear Cuozzo and Kirtsaeng cases
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Supreme Court to hear Cuozzo and Kirtsaeng cases

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will decide what standard the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should use in IPRs after granting cert in Cuozzo v Lee. It will also rule on the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in copyright cases in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons

supreme-court300.jpg

The US Supreme Court chose the Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend as the ideal time to grant cert in two IP cases – one patent case and one copyright case.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee will be extremely closely watched. It will be the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings.

The case involves the first ever inter partes review petition filed, and the first appeal of a PTAB ruling to the Federal Circuit. Last February, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s final determination, finding no error in its claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the obviousness determination, or the denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend.

Cuozzo appealed to the Supreme Court, asking two questions:

-         Whether the [Federal Circuit] erred in holding that, in IPR proceedings, the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning.

-         Whether the [Federal Circuit] erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board’s decision whether to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable.

The case could greatly affect PTAB proceedings. The standard used has been a source of controversy, with many claiming the PTAB should use the same, narrower, standard as district courts. One such critic was indeed the Federal Circuit’s own Judge Pauline Newman, who wrote a strongly-worded dissent in the Cuozzo case. Steve Maebius, partner at Foley & Lardner, said the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a profound impact. “BRI is fundamental to the balance of power between patent owners and petitioners, and acceptance of cert by the Supreme Court may signal intent to modify BRI, which could benefit patent owners,” he commented.

The Supreme Court has also granted cert in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons. The question presented is:

-         What is the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act?

The petition noted that Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a “court may … award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party” in a copyright case, but that different circuits take very different approaches. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits award attorneys’ fees when the prevailing party’s successful claim or defence advanced the purposes of the Copyright Act. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits employ a presumption in favour of attorneys’ fees for a prevailing party that the losing party must overcome. Other courts of appeals primarily employ the several “nonexclusive factors” standard.

“And the Second Circuit, as it did in this case, places ‘substantial weight’ on whether the losing party’s claim or defence was ‘objectively unreasonable’,” says the petition.

Managing IP will publish analyses of both cases in the coming days.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A 36-member team from Zhong Lun Law Firm, including six partners, will join the newly formed East IP Group
The Delhi High Court sided with Ericsson against Indian smartphone maker Lava, bringing the companies' nine-year dispute to a close
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Gift this article