Garrard Beeney’s U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Quoted by Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Politics and IPWatchdog

April 25, 2016

On April 25, Mr. Beeney delivered his oral argument to the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, which was quoted by news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Politics and IPWatchdog. On behalf of S&C client Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Mr. Beeney argued that the America Invents Act provisions establishing a new procedure in the Patent Office to adjudicate patentability required the Office to use the same standard for interpreting issued patents that is used in the district courts, not the broader standard currently in use. Critics of the Office's broader standard, which has led to the cancellation of 10,000 patent claims since 2011, argue that this different standard not only results in the cancellation of perfectly lawful patents, but creates inconsistent results when the  same patents are evaluated by the courts and the Office. During oral arguments, Mr. Beeney explained “why the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation expedient in no way comports with the Congressional purpose of inter partes review” and argued that the ordinary-meaning standard used by the courts should apply after the patent has been issued so that “we wouldn't be depriving patent owners of their property rights based on pretending the patent means something that it doesn't mean.”