Inter partes review cannot be used to challenge a patent claim on the basis that it is indefinite, lacks written description, or is not enabled. See 35 U.S.C. 311(b) (allowing a request for IPR based on “patents or printed publications”). But, does that mean that the Board might not give an accused infringer ammunition usable in a court or other tribunal. For example, in Sony Computer Entertainment of America v. Grobler, IPR2013-00076, Paper 12 (Jul. 22, 2013), the Board construed the term “verification mechanism for verifying the authenticity of the key means.” When construing this term, the Board noted that “[t]he specification provides no description of the structure of the” claimed verification mechanism. The Board noted that it could not consider issues of definiteness, so it based its construction of this term on its construction of the term “key means.” It will be interesting to see how much (if any) deference this comment regarding claim construction may have in the courts.