What Next? The Supreme Court’s decision will not likely change much in the near term — especially in light of the fact that it made no express changes to PTO procedure for and regulations governing IPR. That said, the opinion itself is limited to concepts of statutory construction and administrative rulemaking authority. And, while the policy arguments raised by Cuozzo and various amici did not ultimately prove persuasive based on the specific issues on appeal, the opinion expressly carved out bases for several possible future challenges based on the manner in which the PTAB proceeds during IPR. In the meantime, there are still several takeaways from the opinion to consider going forward for any party engaged in IPR, for example: • Under a different set of facts, would a patent holder have been able to present an argument based on alleged “shenanigans” or “arbitrary and capricious” decisions? • What is “reasonable” under the broadest reasonable construction standard, and how is that different from the construction a district court might assign to the same claim term? • Is the PTAB likely to increase its allowance rate for amendments? Berwyn | Boston | Detroit | Harrisburg | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Philadelphia | Pittsburgh | Princeton Silicon Valley | Washington | Wilmington pepperlaw.com .