In Toyota Motor Corporation v. LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, IPR 2013-00483, Paper 21 (April 16, 2014), the patent expired during the inter partes review, as a result the parties and the Board agreed that “broadest reasonable interpretation” was no longer appropriate.  (This mirrors the treatment in reexamination where because expiration of the patent means that the claims can no longer be amended, broadest reaasonable interpretation is no longer appropriate).  The Board which had instituted the Inter Partes Review based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term monitoring: “monitoring” namely, “watching, keeping track of, or checking.”  The Board was now forced to construe the term “monitoring,” which it determined meant: “watching or keeping track of, or checking.”  At least in this case the interpreation and the broadest reasonable interpretation were exactly the same!