The US Supreme Court [official website] upheld [opinion, PDF] several provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) [text, PDF] on Monday. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee [SCOTUSblog materials] the court heard arguments on whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in challenges are under judicial review and whether the Board may construe claims in a challenged patent to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than its plain and ordinary meaning. In a unanimous decision the court upheld the ruling [opinion, PDF] by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] in favor of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in April. Under the AIA statute [SCOTUSBlog analysis], competitors can file a petition seeking inter partes review. The newly created Patent Trial and Appeal Board can institute a review if it finds a “reasonable likelihood that the challenger would prevail.” The point of contention is the language that the review decision is “final and nonappealable.” When issuing a patent, the PTO considers applications under a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard to determine if the patent conflict with prior art. However, in litigation, an “ordinary meaning” standard has been applied. Under the AIA, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has used the broadest reasonable interpretation standard which is the major point of dispute in the case. Due to this conflict and confusion, Global Positioning System (GPS) manufacturer Garmin [official website] requested the PTO review Cuozzo’s trademark on speed indicator technology, alleging that multiple parts were ambiguous. Cuozzo requested to revise those portions, but instead the PTO found that no changes should be made.