Practice Area

Patent Litigation

PTAB Proceedings

Patterson Belknap’s patent attorneys help our clients navigate complex proceedings before the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), including before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Firm attorneys have handled numerous inter partes review (IPR) proceedings on behalf of clients in the healthcare, electronic, computer software and technology industries. We also have experience with Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.

Our experience includes:

  • Representation of patent owner in an IPR proceeding of a patent concerning the therapeutic use of a recombinant protein.

  • Obtained the denial of a generic manufacturer’s petition for IPR of a patent covering a crystal polymorph of a blockbuster drug.

  • Representation of patent owner in several IPR proceedings of a patent concerning methods of allocating signaling data channels in a multiple access communication system.

  • Representation of co-petitioner in an IPR proceeding challenging a patent on remote monitoring of a patient’s medical condition. Successfully obtained institution of IPR of all claims; case settled before final decision.

  • Representation of petitioner in a CBM proceeding challenging a patent concerning a method for conducting a telephone- or Internet-based reverse auction. PTAB issued final determination after full hearing on the merits finding all 39 challenged claims to be unpatentable.

  • Representation of petitioner in an IPR proceeding challenging a patent concerning LED driver circuits. Cased settled before institution decision.

  • Representation of petitioner in IPR proceedings challenging a patent concerning LCD driver circuits.

  • Representation of petitioner in an IPR proceeding and a PGR proceeding challenging patents concerning methods for manufacturing nickel titanium endodontic instruments. The PTAB found all challenged claims of two related patents in the IPR and PGR proceedings unpatentable on multiple grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the IPR final determination of unpatentability. The Patent Owner withdrew its initial appeal of the PGR decision, resulting in a final judgment that all challenged claims of the other patent were also unpatentable.

  • Representation of patent owner in IPR proceeding concerning claims directed vibratory screening machines and associated screens used in the mining, and oil and gas drilling industries. Proceeding terminated on the eve of the PTAB hearing after favorable settlement that included admission of validity.