CAFC affirms PTAB in IPRs related to BELDEN INC . v. BERK - TEK LLC

As to standards:

During an inter partes review, the Board

construes disputed limitations according to

their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent 

with the specification.

In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 

778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.2015).

We then review that construction according to the

standard set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v.

Sandoz, Inc. , 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).

Id. at 1282.

We review  the ultimate construction

de novo and the underlying

factual determinations involving

extrinsicevidence for substantial evidence.

Id. at 1282–83

As to expert testimony:

--

We also reject Belden’s argument

that the Board should have accepted

its expert testimony. As an initial matter, a tribunal is not required to accept

expert testimonysimply because it was not challenged and the de-

clarant was not deposed.

See Applied Med.Res.Corp. v.

U.S. Surgical Corp. , 147 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

(“The fact that Applied Medical did not contest

this pointwith testimony from one of its own experts no more re-

solves the factual question in Surgical’s favor . . . .”).

Nonetheless, the Board

correctly rejected Belden’s expert

testimony proffered by the co-inventor,

finding that it was“conclusory” and “not supported by a citation to the Speci-

fication or an ordinary meaning,”

Board Decision Iat 14,

as we have held that “conclusory, unsupported assertions

by experts as to the definition of a claim term

are notuseful to a [tribunal],

”

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (cita-

tions omitted).

--




link:  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1676.Opinion.4-15-2015.1.PDF