温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.fr.com/insights/thought-leadership/blogs/uspto-limits-use-of-general-knowledge-in-ipr-proceedings
点击访问原文链接

USPTO Limits Use of General Knowledge in IPR Proceedings

进入原网站 导航首页
USPTO Limits Use of General Knowledge in IPR Proceedings Skip to Main Content Why Fish Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Pro Bono & Social Responsibility Legal Operations Pricing Legal Project Management Knowledge Management eDiscovery Legal Technology Services Our People Services Litigation Patent Litigation Trademark, Copyright & Media Litigation Trade Secret Litigation Appellate ITC Litigation & Section 337 Standard Essential Patents Chancery & Corporate Governance Post-Grant Inter Partes Review Post-Grant Review Ex Parte Reexamination Supplemental Examination Patent Patent Prosecution Strategic Patent Counseling & Opinions Patent Portfolio Management Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court IP Licensing, Transactions & Agreements Trademark & Copyright Counseling & Prosecution Strategic Counseling, Registration & Opinions Advertising & Marketing Domain Names & Internet TTAB Oppositions & Cancellations Digital Millennium Copyright Act Transactions & Agreements Regulatory & Government Affairs Communications & Spectrum Regulation Drug & Medical Device Regulation mHealth & Telemedicine Privacy & Data Security Industries Electrical & Computer Technology Software & Internet Hardware Semiconductors Consumer Electronics Optics Artificial Intelligence Digital Health Digital Media & E-Commerce Financial, Business & FinTech Services Telecommunications Energy & Chemicals Petrochemical Cleantech Life Sciences Biotech & Diagnostics Medical Devices Pharmaceuticals Academic Research & Medical Centers Transportation, Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing Autonomous Vehicles Insights Thought Leadership IP Law Essentials Post-Grant Annual Reports Webinars Podcasts Offices Careers News & Events Contact Us

Blog August 4, 2025

USPTO Limits Use of General Knowledge in IPR Proceedings  Fish & Richardson

Home Insights Thought Leadership USPTO Limits Use of General Knowledge in IPR... Authors Name Jennifer J. Huang Person title Principal Name Karan Jhurani Person title Principal Name Usman Khan, Ph.D. Person title Principal Name Kristi L. R. Sawert, Ph.D. Person title Principal Name Nicholas W. Stephens Person title Principal On July 31, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum(“Memo”) announcing that the Office will renew enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“Rule 104(b)(4)”) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Rule 104(b)(4) requires a petition for IPR to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”  

Significantly, the Memo explains that the Office’s renewed enforcement of Rule 104(b)(4) will forbid petitioners from relying on “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense,” and similar evidence (collectively, “general knowledge”) that does not originate from “prior art patents or printed publications” to address a missing claim limitation. However, the Memo notes that petitioners may still use general knowledge to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).  

The Office explains that the updated guidance is consistent with recent Federal Circuit precedent concerning whether AAPA can be used to address a missing claim limitation. In Qualcomm, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., 24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Qualcomm I), the court held that, while the use of AAPA is not categorically excluded, it is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” and cannot form the “basis” of an invalidity ground. The Office subsequently issued guidanceallowing the use of AAPA in asserted grounds so long as it was “in combination” with at least one qualifying prior art patent or printed publication. In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 134 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (Qualcomm II), the court rejected the Office’s guidance regarding the “in combination” use of AAPA and held that AAPA cannot be used even as a partial basis for an invalidity ground. Notably, the Qualcomm II court did not reject reliance on general knowledge in addressing a limitation missing from the cited art where the general knowledge did not form the “basis” for the presented ground.  

Nevertheless, the Office will now “deny an IPR petition” that relies on general knowledge — instead of “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” — to address challenged claims in a petition. The Memo indicates that renewed enforcement of Rule 104(b)(4) will provide a means for (1) identifying the petitioner’s legal and factual basis for satisfying the threshold for instituting IPR and (2) providing the patent owner with notice as to the basis for the challenge to the claims.  

The updated guidance applies to IPR petitions filed on or after September 1, 2025. 

Takeaways  Potential petitioners should seek to map elements of a challenged claim to express disclosures in prior art relied upon in their grounds and should carefully scrutinize petitions to ensure that general knowledge is not being leveraged to supply a limitation absent from the prior art. Patent owners should carefully scrutinize petitions for reliance on general knowledge beyond motivation to combine and the knowledge of a POSITA. 

Although the Memo addresses only IPRs, potential petitioners for post-grant review should expect the Office to apply the same reasoning to post-grant review (PGR) under 37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(4). Rule 204(b)(4), similar to Rule 104(b)(4), requires that a PGR petition challenging patentability “based on prior art” must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.”  

The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.

Related Services Post-Grant Inter Partes Review More by same author(s) Blog October 17, 2025 USPTO Proposes Rule That Could Impact IPR Challenges Read more Blog September 18, 2025 Senate Confirms John Squires as USPTO Director  Read more Article July 30, 2025 Broad Prosecution History Estoppel Decision Shows Risk of Relying on Doctrine of Equivalents  Read more Blog June 25, 2025 USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled Read more Blog June 16, 2025 Ingenico v. IOENGINE and the Diminishing Role of Sotera Stipulations Read more Blog June 6, 2025 The PREVAIL Act Is Back. Will It Prevail This Time? Read more Blog May 23, 2025 John Squires Faces the Senate Judiciary Committee   Read more Blog May 19, 2025 Acting USPTO Director Stewart Issues First Decisions Under Interim Discretionary Denial Process Read more Blog April 25, 2025 PTAB Issues FAQs on Interim Process for Workload Management Read more Blog March 31, 2025 What to Know About the PTAB’s Discretionary Denial Shakeups  Read more Related thought leadership Blog February 10, 2026 How To Kill a Weak Patent: 10 Strategies After Being Sued Read more Blog December 29, 2025 Lessons From Recent Pharma & Med Device Federal Circuit Decisions Read more Article December 15, 2025 Federal Circuit Declines To Disturb “Settled Expectations” Factor in Denying Mandamus Petitions Read more Blog November 12, 2025 Unpacking Appellate Challenges to the USPTO’s Discretionary Denial Framework Read more Blog October 21, 2025 Director Squires Updates PTAB Institution Decision Process  Read more Blog October 17, 2025 USPTO Proposes Rule That Could Impact IPR Challenges Read more Blog October 1, 2025 The Government Shutdown’s Impacts on IP Read more Blog September 18, 2025 Senate Confirms John Squires as USPTO Director  Read more Article July 11, 2025 IP Policy Shifts Are Promising for Patent Owners in High Tech Read more Blog June 25, 2025 USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled Read more Offices Atlanta Austin Boston Chicago Dallas Delaware Houston Minneapolis Munich New York Orange County San Diego Shenzhen Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. Careers Life at Fish Judicial Clerks Law Students Lateral Hires Scientists & Engineers Operations & Admin Staff Training & Benefits FAQ Subscribe Contact Us Site Information Site Map Cookie Policy Disclaimer Privacy Policy Terms of Use

Copyright © 2026 Fish & Richardson P.C.

智能索引记录