Practice Areas & Industries: Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP


Patent Office Litigation Return to Practice Areas & Industries

Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Led by our Patent Office Litigation Chair, Robert Asher, our lawyers combine deep experience in patent office proceedings and patent litigation. In the USPTO, our skills at handling inter partes reexaminations, ex parte reexaminations, patent interferences and patent prosecution have been put to work in inter partes reviews. Our years of experience working with experts, questioning witnesses and standing up to advocate in court for our clients in district court patent litigation round out our readiness to litigate before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition, our practitioners are ready to contribute to the case strategy in the full expanse of technical areas.  We have represented clients in numerous fields, including data communications and networking, molecular and cell biology, electronic systems, integrated circuits, electro-mechanical and microprocessor-controlled devices, medical devices, computer hardware and software, voice recognition and synthesis, chemistry, food science, biochemistry, textiles, plastics, optics and imaging, x-ray systems, metallurgy, ceramics, magnetic recording, fluid control systems and mechanical devices.

Post Grant Review – Post-grant review (PGR) has certain limitations in terms of timing and scope. It may only be filed against patents issuing with priority dates later than March 15, 2013. There is a specific window in which PGR is available: a request must be filed within 9 months of the date a patent issues or reissues. A party cannot seek PGR if it has already brought a declaratory judgment action seeking the invalidity of the patent in court. The PGR requester can introduce any evidence that would be used to show invalidity. Thus, not only patents and printed publications but questions like lack of patentable subject matter, indefiniteness of the claims, lack of enablement and earlier on sale may be raised. The standard for PGR requires requester to show that any challenged claim is more likely than not to be declared unpatentable or that its request raises novel or unsettled legal questions important to other patents or applications.

A party seeking to use PGR should be aware that the procedure has estoppel effects not only in federal court litigation, but also in proceedings in the USPTO and ITC. The estoppel is not only for issues raised in the proceedings, but any that “reasonably” could have been raised. Given the broad array of validity grounds a party can raise in PGR, this leaves an unsuccessful litigant with little more than non-infringement to argue in litigation. The estoppel becomes effective as soon as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues the final written determination.

Inter Partes Review – Inter partes review (IPR) is available to seek to cancel claims of any currently enforceable United States patent. (For new patents granted under the new first-inventor-to-file laws, an inter partes review cannot be filed until after the 9-month post-grant review period concludes or an already instituted post-grant review proceeding has been concluded.)

IPR is available to challenge the patentability of claims in a patent on which a party has been sued for patent infringement, if the petition for IPR is filed (with a few exceptions) within one year after the complaint for patent infringement has been served on the party.

The challenge to a patent attacked in an IPR is limited to arguing that the claims of the patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness based on prior art that is found in patents and printed publications.

In acting on a petition for IPR, the USPTO will not institute an IPR proceeding unless the petitioner has established a “reasonable likelihood” that it will prevail on at least one ground asserted against at least one claim. An IPR proceeding involving a patent has an “estoppel” effect, wherein the petitioner in an IPR is prevented from later challenging (in court, in the USPTO, or in the ITC) the validity of any claim in the patent on any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. On the other hand, because the only challenges that can be made in an IPR are those relating to anticipation or obviousness based on patents and printed publications, the petitioner is not prevented from later challenging validity on the basis of lack of an enabling disclosure for the claims, lack of clarity in the claims, etc. Estoppel against an unsuccessful petitioner becomes effective as soon as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues the final written determination.

The final written decision has another estoppel effect, in this case on the patent owner. The patent owner is prevented from obtaining another claim in another patent, for the subject matter in the IPR, unless the claim is patentably distinct from any claim rejected in the decision.

If the IPR results in the cancellation of any claims, and the patent fails to emerge from the IPR with amended or new patent claims substantially identical to the original claims, the cancellation becomes effective to invalidate the patent claims in court after the patent owner has exhausted all available appeals from the IPR or if the time for any further appeals has lapsed.

Covered Business Method Reviews – Business method patents are particularly susceptible to attack. A post-grant review type of attack may be brought if a petitioner has been charged with infringement of the patent. A claim subject to a covered business method review pertains to a “method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” There is no time limit for seeking a covered business method review. The patents may be challenged as invalid on any ground. Nevertheless, a petitioner receives favorable treatment and is subject to estoppel only for those grounds raised in the covered business method review. Moreover, the petitioner has the right to file an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit if denied a stay of the litigation while the covered business method review is pending. Thus, when applicable in litigation, these covered business method reviews will be exceptionally well suited for filing by defendants.


Services Available

Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Designing a Stronger International Portfolio: The Hague Agreement and US Industrial Design Remedies
Emmanuel D. Filandrianos, August 18, 2015
Business-savvy designers with an eye towards global design protection should be excited. The U.S. has recently joined the international design system established by the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, giving designers a streamlined procedure for...

Federal Circuit Moves Claim Construction One Step Closer to Uniformity
Robert M. Asher, August 18, 2015
The America Invents Act of 2012 gave accused infringers a robust set of options for challenging patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an adjudicatory body of the Patent and Trademark Office. These challenges-- inter partes reviews, covered business method reviews, and post-grant...

Following a Congressional Mandate, the Federal Circuit Streamlines the Patent Litigation Process
Brandon Arey,Thomas C. Carey, August 18, 2015
In three recent cases decided by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, jurisdictional issues have limited the options available to patent litigants. The general effect of the decisions has been to restrict the ability to appeal and, in the case of appeals of proceedings before the Patent Trial and...

Recent (and Anticipated) Developments in the International Application of US Patent Laws
Thomas C. Carey, August 18, 2015
The international patent system is premised on the notion that each country regulates patent laws and their enforcement within its own borders. International commerce does not always lend itself to such tidy compartments, however, forcing courts and legislatures to address complex situations. Two...

The Specter of Indefiniteness: Recent Rulings Pose Further Challenges for Computer Software Patents
Jay Sandvos, August 18, 2015
In 1980, the Supreme Court declared that “anything under the sun that is made by man” could be patented. At that time, the main challenge in getting a patent was to demonstrate how the claims were novel and inventive over the teachings of the prior art. But more recent court decisions...

Issues Resolved in an Administrative Trademark Proceeding May Bind Federal Courts in Subsequent Infringement Actions
Steven A. Abreu, August 05, 2015
In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., B&B opposed Hargis’s attempt to register its trademark SEALTITE, arguing that it would create confusion with its own SEALTIGHT mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) agreed and refused to register the mark. Hargis did not appeal...