Search

Patent Office Validity Challenges

Overview
News
Meet The Team
Rep. Matters

Irwin IP’s intellectual property litigators are experienced and well-versed in pursuing and defending against patent validity challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) such as Post-Grant Reviews (commonly known as “PGRs”), and Inter Partes Review (commonly known as “IPRs”).  PGRs and IPRs were introduced as part of the 2011 America Invents Act, and are collectively referred to as “AIA trials.” They represent a relatively recent, but oft-used, development in the field of intellectual property law, and provide an expedited and economical means to challenge the validity of a patent through review by the PTAB.  In addition, Irwin IP is well-versed in the Patent and Trademark Office’s reexamination procedure, which represents another cost-effective pathway for challenging a patent before the Patent Office

Due to their relative speed and cost-effectiveness, PTAB patent validity challenges constitute one of the mainstays of Irwin IP’s portfolio of client services, and Irwin IP has a proven track record of successful practice before the PTAB.  For example, the PTAB instituted IPR proceedings based upon a petition prepared by Irwin IP attorneys against a patent that was not only touted by its Fortune 50 owner to be the foundation of a billion-dollar-per-year business, but also had survived invalidity challenges in two prior litigations and an IPR action.  Despite this substantial body of adverse history, the PTAB instituted IPR upon Irwin IP’s client’s petition, determining that there was at least a “reasonable likelihood that [Irwin IP’s client] would prevail.”- More recently, Irwin IP obtained institution of multiple IPRs and PGRs on against numerous design patents owned by Irwin IP’s client’s Fortune 20 opponent, as well as numerous granted requests for reexamination of other design patents in the opponent’s portfolio.

Irwin IP litigators’ knowledge of PTAB proceedings, as well as substantive patent law, allow them to design sound and successful strategies for clients’ intellectual property challenges using all of the tools in the intellectual property litigator’s toolbox, including proceedings challenging or defending patents before the PTAB

PTAB Petitions for Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review

IPR2019-01276 (defending against an invalidity challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,792,256)

IPR2020-00062 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D811,964)

PGR2020-00002 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D847,043)

PGR2020-00003 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D847,703)

IPR2020-00064 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D823,741)

PGR2020-00004 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D840,306)

PGR2020-00005 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D841,532)

IPR2020-00536 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D797,624)

IPR2020-00534 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D797,625)

IPR2020-00530 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D813,755)

PGR2020-00020 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D852,099)

PGR2020-00022 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D850,341)

PGR2020-00021 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D853,903)

PGR2020-00023 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D859,246)

PGR2020-00024 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D859,253)

IPR2020-00821 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D813,759)

IPR2020-00823 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D837,105)

PGR2020-00055 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D855,508)

PGR2020-00054 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D864,065)

USPTO Reexamination Proceedings

90/014495 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D773,361)

90/014492 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D813,120)

90/014491 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D828,255)

90/014494 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D841,542)

90/014493 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D848,318)

90/014496 (challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. D805,966)

Federal Circuit Appeals

21-2348 (appealing PTAB finding of no invalidity regarding U.S. Patent No. D797,625)

22-1253 (appealing PTAB finding of no invalidity regarding U.S. Patent No. D855,508)  

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) resolved district court splits regarding obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) by holding that ODP is still a valid challenge to patent validity and that the application of ODP is not dependent on intent of the patentee.  ODP…
In a stark order, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated patents because a patent owner failed to disclose test results that were inconsistent with the patent owner’s arguments, underscoring the PTAB’s focus on holding parties accountable when they fail to meet their duty of candor and fair…
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated. The ’830 patent’s owner, the Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Minnesota”), argued before…