CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854

Post Grant Strategy

Post-grant challenges:
New options and strategies;
Decisions to make

The America Invents Act (AIA) has made a number of changes in the way patent disputes are resolved. Before the AIA, there were the options of inter partes reexamination and ex parte reexamination before the US Patent Office (USPTO), and litigation in federal district court.

Under the AIA, inter partes reexamination has been eliminated. Litigation is increasingly seen as an excessively slow and expensive option.

The Patent and Trademark Appeals Board (PTAB) of the USPTO now accepts petitions to invalidate patents. The three kinds of Post-Grant Challenges (PGCs) are:

  • inter partes review (IPR),
  • covered business method review (CBM), and
  • post-grant review (PGR).

An IPR challenge must be made within 12 months after a patent has been granted. A PGR must be sought within nine months. There is no express time limit for a CBM.

The advantages of filing a PGC v. litigation include lower costs and speed.

A PGC proceeding must be completed within 12 months after it’s initiated, although in rare cases this period may be extended to 18 months for good cause.

Also, the PTAB will apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” claim construction standard, which resolves ambiguities in favor of broader construction. In contrast, federal district courts apply the “ordinary and customary meaning” standard. The result is that it’s easier for a defendant to invalidate a broader claim under the PGC process.

The PTAB is also considered a better place to litigate patent disputes because the administrative law judges on the board are experts in patent law. In comparison, many federal district court judges have little knowledge of or experience with patent law issues.

The PGC process can be especially valuable for large companies under siege from Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs, aka “patent trolls”) that bring multiple lawsuits and seek to settle for slightly less than the costs of litigation. Since the PGC process is cheaper than litigation, it’s a cost-effective way to fight rather than settle claims that may be of questionable validity.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854