In ZyXEL Communications v. Unm Rainforest Innovations, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, clarified the MTA Pilot Program, which is designed to allow reply briefs to address and correct errors. It was not error, or at worst, harmless error, for the Board to permit UNMRI to use its reply brief to supplement the written description support that should have been, but was not, included in its original motion to amend.

• Review and analysis (Orig.)
• Summary

Orrick posted a great summary of Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, which addressed when and how amendments should be permitted in IPR practice. Key findings include:

1. When a patent owner proposes an amended claim in IPR, the burden of persuasion with respect to patentability is on the petitioner to show that the patent is unpatentable.
2. Regardless of which party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence to support patentability.
3. The PTO is authorized a promulgate a new rule regarding the burden of persuasion to put the burden on the patent owner instead.

• Orrick's post (cached MAFF)