Because IPR proceedings provide a faster and cheaper alternative to district court litigation, the process has become a popular means for challenging issued patent claims. This summary breaks down the IPR process and identifies some basic strategic considerations for challengers and patent owners. Read the full IPR>>IRL

When the patent owner files a patent owner’s preliminary response (POPR) to an inter partes review petition, the petitioner can request leave to reply before the Board issues its institution decision. Such requests must include “a showing of good cause.”

As reported by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the motion to amend pilot program (see 84 Fed. Reg. 9497), which took effect in March 2019, has increased patent owners’ success in obtaining claim amendments during post-grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs).

This fourth annual article provides an empirical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2020.

Motions to amend have been part of America Invents Act trials since their inception. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office solicited public input on the motion to amend process, which was followed by a study by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The study led to changes implemented in a Pilot Program that began in March 2019.

Did the SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu ruling change the PTAB's approach to institution of IPRs? Our original research examines the aftereffect of the Court's decision.

Our follow-up prior art article considers the PTAB’s precedential opinion in Hulu and its implications for practitioners.

Proving up prior art when working with publications has been complicated and unpredictable. In this two-part series, we look at varying opinions from Patent Trial and Appeal Board panels and issues triggered by Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC. 

When multiple inter partes review petitions are filed against the same patent, what result can you expect? We analyze recent developments on serial and parallel IPR petitions and offer practical tips.

This article provides an empirical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2019.

In April 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must institute inter partes review either on all claims raised in a petition or none of them.

Perkins Coie attorneys explore tactical considerations when challenging issued patent claims in IPRs in the final half of a two-part series.

Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. last August, many patent commentators have asserted that the decision marked a significant change in the analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, especially as a weakening of single-reference obviousness grounds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears your appeal of an inter partes review but does not affirm the decision.

James Coughlan and Kevin Patariu look at some of the benefits and disadvantages of running concurrent challenges with the PTAB and the ITC.

An In-Depth Look at Factors Affecting Your IPR Strategy
Fifth anniversaries are milestone occasions. Following our prior reports marking the passage of three and four years of inter partes review practice, we proudly offer this year’s report, Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Fifth Anniversary Report.

A successful petition for inter partes review (IPR) reflects a variety of considerations, including claim construction, selection of prior art and whether to use an expert declaration.

As set forth in part 1 of this article, the question of how a real party in interest (RPI) to an inter partes review (IPR) is determined has presented challenges and uncertainties for litigants.

Since the adoption of the America Invents Act and the institution of the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the question of how a real party in interest to an IPR is defined has presented challenges for petitioners and opportunities for patent owners.

Perkins Coie is marking the fourth anniversary of inter partes review (IPR) with a report focused on the changes and progress of IPR proceedings, particularly since September 2015. As IPR proceedings have become more familiar during the past four years, growing clarity on many issues has resulted from decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to read the full report.

Since inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were implemented in September 2012, they have become an attractive supplement to district court litigation for contesting the validity of a patent.

When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become the preferred procedure for challenging the validity of a patent. Read the full report.

While the America Invents Act’s introduction of inter partes review proceedings was intended to strengthen the quality of issued patents, no one could have predicted how quickly IPRs would become a mainstay defensive tactic in U.S. patent litigation.

The U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) has recently changed the way it interprets a crucial requirement for initial petitions for Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews.