October Term 2015 · Docket 15-446

Does the Patent Office use the broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review?

Cuozzo Speed Technologies argues the Patent Office misapplied claim construction rules. The government defends its current interpretation method.

Official caption
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Gannon argued the Patent Office reasonably uses its longstanding approach.

    Mr. Beeney argued the broadest reasonable interpretation harms patent holders.

    Justice Breyer asked whether the interpretation determines patentability directly.

    Justice Alito asked if the Board must stick to its initial interpretation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board interprets patent claims during inter partes review. Cuozzo Speed Technologies seeks a standard aligned with district courts. The government defends the Board's existing approach.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Cuozzo Speed Technologies wants the Court to mandate ordinary claim construction standards.

The government wants the Court to uphold the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Cuozoo Speed Technologies argues the broadest reasonable interpretation conflicts with congressional purpose.

The government argues the broadest reasonable interpretation fits the hybrid nature of the proceeding.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked about the second of four points.

Justice Sotomayor questioned whether congressional amendment rights support the side that brought the case's view.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Patent holders face different interpretation standards in administrative and judicial forums. This inconsistency creates uncertainty in patent enforcement. The outcome shapes the balance between administrative efficiency and legal consistency.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON