Award Mouse thought multimedia interface book medal screen monitor

Patent Challenge Proceedings

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an important venue for resolving validity challenges because it generally takes less time to complete, it is a challenger-friendly forum, the cost is lower than litigating validity in court and the odds of success are far greater than in district court, as a general rule. Because PTAB challenge proceedings hold the potential for eliminating patent rights or at least streamlining infringement litigation, district courts regularly stay cases before them pending completion of co-pending PTAB proceedings.

Why Choose Us

  • Our PTAB practice team has deep experience representing parties in administrative patent proceedings. Our collective experience litigating validity issues in district courts, before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and administrative challenge proceedings in the USPTO exceeds more than 250 matters. 
  • We provide legal representation in PTAB proceedings to patent challengers, as well as patent owners. 
  • Our team includes patent lawyers who regularly litigate patent validity issues in US district courts and the ITC, and other patent lawyers who regularly practice before the USPTO. 
  • Each of these professionals is a registered patent lawyer possessing a physical science or engineering degree (some have advanced degrees) along with considerable legal experience with validity or patentability issues. 
  • Our experience extends to a wide variety of technologies, such as many kinds of manufactured products (e.g., medical devices), machines, computer implemented inventions, communication systems and methods, industrial processes and chemical compositions.

Our firm provides legal representation in PTAB challenge proceedings, including:

Post-Grant Review (PGR) Proceedings

  • Available to challenge the patentability of an AIA patent within nine months of issue 
  • Challenge grounds include lack of novelty, obviousness, lack of written description and enablement, and indefiniteness

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings

  • Available to challenge pre-AIA patents, and AIA patents nine months from issue or after a PGR proceeding is terminated 
  • Challenge grounds include lack of novelty and obviousness based on prior art patents and printed publications 
  • Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBMR) proceedings 
  • Available to challenge financial-related business method patents where challenger was sued for patent infringement 
  • Challenge grounds are substantially the same as PGR

{{insights.date}} {{insights.source}} {{insights.type}}